Does the Bible have serious Validity?

Question

The Bible suggests that mankind originated in the Middle East somewhere. All of the original Seven Wonders of the world were in or around the Mediterranean area. Not much was going on elsewhere in the world around 1000 BC.

Also, the Bible says there was a world wide flood. Interestingly, most other religions, including those of Native Americans, suggested that there was a massive flood. Also, oceanic fossils found on mountain tops suggest this to have been the case.

There is also a scripture in the Bible, written around 300 BC, that states "the earth hangs upon nothing." Around the same time, the Zoroastrians thought earth was being held up by elephants and the Greeks thought it was Atlas holding up earth.

Is all of this coincidence or does this make you have a certain amount of caution before writing off the Bible as fiction?

Answer 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes .

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: "deuterocanonical," or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called "secondary rank," as opposed to the other books which are called "protocanonical"). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision ,see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide, and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.

It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.
Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical".

This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place?

Answer 2

Actually around 1000 BC there were many things going on in different cultures from China to the Americas and everything in between. Civilization was well on its way.
As for the flood doesn't it seem strange that all these cultures talk of a flood? Must have been one then. Why wouldn't the other cultures and writings talk about a real flood that happened to them as well.
The world's culture didn't grow up in a vaccum. Many of the cultures communicated and borrowed things from each other. The question is not that they are similar but the fact that the ancient biblical writings stand out so differently: One God only, a Chosen people, 10 commandments, uniqueness of the Jewish Priesthood, One Temple, no human sacrifices, etc.
We now know that the Jewish scriptures told us the truth about the earth "hanging upon nothing," and we know the falsity of the idea of elephants holding up the earth.
In New York City's Rockefeller Center there is a statue of Atlas holding up the world, as the ancient greeks thought. This statue is right across the street from St. Patrick's Cathedral on 5th Avenue. Does anyone today really believe that the world is held up by a guy named Atlas?
Getting back to the bible, the scriptures are so unique in the world's history. It is the first writing showing directly what God wanted from his people and also what he would do if they loved him. But like all people, the jews were stubborn. They didn't listen. So God, through the prophets told the people what he wanted.
Are there any other scriptures in the world where one testement (old) prefigures so clearly the new testament? The old clearly layed the ground for Jesus and the Church he founded. What other religion in the history of the world has done this?
Part of the Bible's validity rest on the fact that the things it predicted, have come to pass. Why don't we hear much about the ancient religions anymore? Because they are pretty much gone. Because given a choice between love, honor, and truth, or barbarism, most people have the sense to choose the better part. You might say conquest did this. No, history has shown that conquest didn't do it. The Romans conquered many peoples, but they knew when to look the other way as local peoples demanded their own religions or the empire would have trouble.
The validity of the Bible rest with the truth that validates it. Its a long loving and living relationship with God over millenia. God worked hard on it all this time.

Answer 3

Mankind originated in africa.

There was plenty of civilization not in the mediterranean area, the indians were inventing mathematics, the chinese were exploring, the native americans were hunting and building tribal 'empires'.

Oceanic fossils on mountain tops suggest that at some time in the past the mountains were under water, not because of a worldwide flood but because of tectonic activity. Before the indian subcontinent crashed into the eurasian plate the area which is now the himalayas was indeed underwater.

As for the bit about the bible stating the earth hangs upon nothing, they still believed the earth was flat, whereas a greek mathematician (Erastothenes I think) made a very good estimate of its diameter, even if they did think it was held up by atlas.

Even if what you had said were true, the bible is still a work of fiction because donkeys do not talk, snakes do not talk, virgins do not give birth, people do not walk on water, and people to not come back from the dead. All these things happen in Harry Potter too (except the virgin :P).

Answer 4

If one understands that the Bible is the canon of the church or a compilation of works that support a specific set of beliefs, you would see the folly of trying to prove or disprove stories in the Bible. There are many, many other ancient works that were excluded from the Bible because they contradicted the belief system or canon of the Church.

It is not a history book nor a science text book. It is a compilation of ancient writings written by ancient people who were apparently witness to some amazing things and were doing their best to put it down in words. Ancient languages had no words for much of what was witnessed so they used what words and experience they had to put it in writing. For example, if a person back then saw a light shining the only thing to him that could be causing it was the sun or fire. They had no knowledge of any other kind of light.

So, while we may see some similarites in science that seem to support the text in some ways, in reality the actual truth is not proveable nor disproveable. It is what it is. The Bible is the Canon of the church. It was inspired by God or it was not. There is not way to know for sure. That is why it is called faith.

Someone asked if events in the Bible are facts or not. The only answer is that the word "fact" is a scientific term. The Bible tells of things that are not knowable to us scientifically. Whether that makes them something less than facts or something more than facts is up to you to believe. Which path is correct?

That, my friend, is for you to decide. You proceed where science leaves off when ask such questions. This is the realm of the unknowable. You have only your faith to guide you and that is that. No one said it would be easy.

.

Answer 5

tell that to the chinese that nothing in the world was going on except for the middle east about 3000 years ago
You seriously need to read some more recent text books on history. And some books on human evolution.
yes there are some historical facts in the bible, but only those which were apparent to the people who lived at the time when it was written. I do hope the general knowledge available to us has increased since.
And anyway, if you read most fiction books, they usually play in real places you can find on any map, often mention street names which are really in that city. That a book contains some true fact does not constitute proof that it is not a fiction book.

Answer 6

I think that the Bible is just as incorrect as the beliefs of any of the other religious groups you have named. Simply because other religions mention a massive flood does not validate the Bible. All that shows me is that the Bible is simply another recount of a single society's belief as to what was going on in the world at that time, how the world originated, etc. There are several sides to every story and I do not believe Christians have found the truth. None of the above mentioned 'facts' cause me to reconsider my take on the Bible and/or its' validity.

Answer 7

There is a difference in what is written in the bible and what you THINK is written in it. Many bible-apologists like to claim the scientific coherence of the bible by INTERPRETING the bible passages based on their own. They will put some words or ideas to a biblical verse in order to conform it to their own perception of what that verse means. Thus even the very unscientific legend of creation is being made into "scientific" because these bible-apologists will do their twists and turns of the verses to make it appear scientific.
We do not claim that the bible as a book of fiction but we do not agree that it is the very book, the whole of it (is there any?) as a book of salvation. Read the rapes, massacres, incests, murder, immorality stories in the bible and you will understand what I am saying.

Answer 8

I did quite a bit of study regarding other religions. I figured that if something is really a truth, it would be in other religions as well. When I found a truth, and it hit my heart as truth, I added it to what I already believed. I ended up with a religion that’s mine alone. So I'm saying that I look at the coincidences as truths.
Coincidences are small miracles where God chooses to remain anonymous.

Blessed Be

Answer 9

well, consider the possiblitiy of all of those being correct if this were a coincidense. also in the old testiment there are over 200 prophcies made by different people during different time about the messiah. in the new testiment, all of these came true that being coincidence is about as possible as covering the whole state of texas with half dollar coins and writing an x on one and then finding it....lol

Answer 10

The bible has little to no historical validity except for vague accounts of the time periods in which it was written. It does, however have quite a few interspersed health and dietary rules that are more or less valid, if not necessarily for the reasons stated.