Do you believe in the Bible?

[BadPokemon]

I don't believe in the Bible, I believe in the Holy Qur'an! #raisemoslemawareness :v

...okay enough being religious and into the topic. Despite me being of another religion, I've read the bible before, so at least I can tell what the contents of the bible are.

I've said that I don't believe it, not really because of religion, as most of the stories written within are quite simillar to the Qur'an, albeit some differences.

But it's because, as everyone else says, it's just a book written by man. They said that it has been rewritten a lot of times, and verses may come and go whenever it does. And since it is written by man, for every language there is a bible in their own language, and as such the consistency of the contents is not to be trusted.

At least, that's my two cents.

If I'm not mistaken, you are in a similar pickle as me. Wasn't the Quran also written by a man who was alone with no witnesses? There is no proof of his connections with your god being real.

The Bible, however, (especially in the Gospels and New Testament) had many witnesses. When the apostles wrote them, they have the eye witness accounts of many people. When it was finished (not to long after Jesus' death), people can affirm it. If the stories weren't true, the gospels and other books of the Bible would be rejected and not pass on.

 

[Ivysaur]

If the stories weren't true, the gospels and other books of the Bible would be rejected and not pass on.

Then why are there several religions with their own contradicting stories still going on nowadays? Why are there so many ideologies giving solutions to X problem from so many different points of view? Since they can't be all true at once, why aren't people rejecting them?

The "eye witnesses" are only backed on by the own Bible itself, so it's like the Bible backing itself up- that wouldn't hold up in any court, specially since even the accounts from the apostles contradict each other in some points! But you don't need a story to be true to be reproduced down the years. A story won't be passed on because it's true, but rather because it's convincing. You can say that black people are genetically inferior and therefore deserve less rights. And that's not true in any way. But, if it sounds convincing (and useful for a group of people!), that idea will live on for centuries.

 

[Entermaid]

If I'm not mistaken, you are in a similar pickle as me. Wasn't the Quran also written by a man who was alone with no witnesses? There is no proof of his connections with your god being real.

The Bible, however, (especially in the Gospels and New Testament) had many witnesses. When the apostles wrote them, they have the eye witness accounts of many people. When it was finished (not to long after Jesus' death), people can affirm it. If the stories weren't true, the gospels and other books of the Bible would be rejected and not pass on.

This is the same exact argument from the Case for Christ Documentary/Book on Netflix, which I am guessing is your source?

Some blatant ethical issues in his book:

Spoiler:

The logic doesn't stand to reason and the "experts" he consults have tarnished academic careers.

Like the archeologist who failed to present his findings to a peer-reviewed journal. The existence of such a coin is needed in order to fit the timeline presented by Lee Stroebel, and thus his entire argument. His arguement relies upon a non-publishing "archeologist" with degrees in christian theology, not archaeology.

Not to mention Panin, the guy who made the argument that the Hewbrew Bible had patterns and coding among the first letters or last letters or whatever was convenient. At least he did present his findings to other academics, but academic critics see this as circular reasoning.

1. the same kind of arbitrary numeric patterns can be found in any text;
2. only Panin was able to reproduce pattern finding methods, data replicability is of course essential to any empirical research design;
3. Panin argued this coding meant that divine interaction was at play, and God was real. That argument doesn't logically follow since humans are capable of making numerical patterns and coding.

Those are just a couple of the many questionable expert used in his research.

His other proofs, like the resurrection of Christ, ect have similar issues of logic and non-peer reviewed evidence by "experts". Any professional expert makes their research design transparent, so that others are able to test and validate claims. It's unprofessional and severely unethical to either use research that doesn't provide a research design, means of replicability, or essentially any method of testing its validity and then go on to form a thesis among these data in order to make an argument. Non-validated information pieced together is still non-validated.

Let's not forget Greek, Egyptian, Nordic, among other civilizations that have written accounts we consider myths now, that have some accounts of real events but then explain the real events as being caused by supernatural powers. Eye witnesses reify these accounts and these accounts are passed on generation to generation. In these cases, there were entire civilizations that believed the accounts as true as being eye-witnesses to real events, the same can be said for Christ, and the eye-witness testimony of his life. There is reason to believe that there is a mixture of truth and romanticism of that truth in a supernatural fashion. Thus, word of mouth testimony surviving isn't indicative of divine existence. (Though I am also not claiming it refutes the existence of God)

Anyway, "faith" is just that. Belief without unequivocal proof.

 

[Argenta]

If I'm not mistaken, you are in a similar pickle as me. Wasn't the Quran also written by a man who was alone with no witnesses? There is no proof of his connections with your god being real.

.

God is real...Quran is the own proof of itself..Read it! Understand the meanings,then decide yourself.

I'm a Muslim,I believe in my book,I believe in God..I believe in Christianity and in Judaism.,I believe in Jesus,Moses and of course Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them all) .I believe in Bible but not the current bible and I believe in Taurah but not the current Tourah because for me,...any book that says that God has a son is wrong because God has no father,no son..God is one, and all the men he sent was prophets and messengers!

In the name of Allah

" He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent"

Some people DO like to show religion as the cause of wars and pains..that's wrong..it's only some sick tries to destroy religions and make it disappear...religion is God rules on earth,it will always represent the morals and manners of how to act and react ....all we need is respect! for each others and to love each others and accept the differences and then wars will stop...it's not about religions,it's about us humans ...we make wars,we destroy in the name of religion without even understanding.

 

[Musicality]

I'm talking from the point of a person who is of Christian faith here, though I'll try not to let that sway my argument to any one side.

There's been much research and evidence regarding the authenticity of the Bible. Personally I struggle to believe that the contents have not been twisted in one way or another over the few thousand years that have passed, and it's original meaning has been preserved. Regardless if you believe man or a divine entity wrote it.

That being said, I do read and draw from the text in the Bible, but I try to take it with a grain of salt, and am not fully convinced of everything the Bible says. It's kind of sitting on the fence, if you wanted to look at it that way.

 

[Evening]

Bibles are poorly written, so no. The text that it contains, contradict and do not complement each other.

 

[Centipede Chan]

Bibles are poorly written, so no. The text that it contains, contradict and do not complement each other.

That is one of the main reasons I am a nonbeliever of it. Plus a lot of people take the stories in there way to literal. From what I skimmed at it seems that they're more of a guideline on living than actual events that you should believe happened and follow those.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

No. I am an atheist. However, I do believe that certain figures may have been real people at one point, but Jesus and Moses weren't like Superman or anything.

Not trying to be offensive here, but I'm pretty sure if Jesus was born our generation and walked around telling everyone he had family ties to a deity, he'd probably be put on tons of anti-psychotic medications, or maybe in a straitjacket locked inside a padded cell.

My sister once knew this kid in high school that insisted his father was Zeus. No joke.

EDIT: And certain content should be omitted, such as anything promoting illegal acts like slavery and rape.

 

[obZen]

I was raised Catholic, and have to admit, a lot of concept from the Bible legitimately scared me when I was younger.
I did actually read the Bible as a whole. I was 13, in 6th grade
I was mindblown at what I read in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. The rules about cleansing, sexual practices, foods, etc. were things that I was unaware of
In fact, someone pointed out that rules about gays were in the Bible
A quick Google search pointed me to Leviticus, which was the first (Biblical) book I had read
Then, I decided to start from the beginning.
I saw so many contradictions throughout the Bible, and this bothered me.
No one in school, or in my family was able to answer why being gay was wrong, yet we ate shellfish, which was supposedly wrong. Rabbits are evil, along with sitting on the couch on your period.

Then, I saw something about the "unforgiveable" sin, which was blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This really startled me, and I was very anxious when talking about the Holy Spirit, because I was afraid of commiting this sin. One of my teachers had taught us that taking God's name in vain ("God damn it") was a mortal sin. I cried that night because mortal sin = damnation to Hell, and I had said, "God damn it" on multiple occasions.

Relevation was a whole 'nother ball game. I seriously had nightmares after reading it. I was terrified that any of that would happen. Just read it, and keep in mind I believed it as truth, and was 13.

Sodom and Gomorrah was striking. All of this killing, by a benevolent God?

I decided to read up on a variety of religions, and questioned why they were all so radically different. Also, the corruption of the Catholic Church was beyond merit
Not to mention, people just pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible

After I denounced the Bible, I found that my anxiety was gone, and life much brighter than ever before. All of the fear of Hell, and being judged by a (seemingly) unfair God, gone.

It all came together more and more, to me, that the Bible was no medium by which to live life.

I have no issues with people who choose to follow it, that's their choice, not mine.
However, I refuse to add this book to my personal beliefs.

Some contradictions can be found:

Spoiler:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra

 

[PkmnTrainerElio]

This will be confusing for some, but...
I believe in God and Jesus, but, I do not believe in the Bible or Christianity, why? Because I find the Bible contradicts itself and is hard to understand and I don't believe in Christianity, because most fundamentalists have ruined it for me.

 

[£]

This will be confusing for some, but...
I believe in God and Jesus, but, I do not believe in the Bible or Christianity, why? Because I find the Bible contradicts itself and is hard to understand.

I don't like this. (bolded)

I don't think it should be unusual to anybody that someone has a belief that differs from what a "standard belief" is. I imagine every single Christian who does give weight to the bible believes it in a SLIGHTLY different way to the next person even if they say they follow the entire book to the letter. Our very brains are wired differently, hence we have the wonderful differences that make us so interesting. A lot of things are open to interpretation, a lot of people pick and choose what they perceive as rightful Christian moralities or even other morals.

This should not be confusing or frowned upon.

 

[Alex]

I believe in God as a personal belief to aid one's journey through life. I am not religious, nor do I ever pray to God or look to it for answers. I do not believe in a higher, all-knowing Deity. I do not believe in the fabrication that is the Church's God. I do not believe in the scriptures of the Bible and would not use the book as a compass to my life.

If I were to submit to a god, it would be my own personal fabrication of a moral compass and hope for a brighter future within my own life alone. Basically, I am my own god.

 

[Trickori]

I was born and raised catholic but I've found the bible to be hurtful and corrupt more than anything. If it was the word of a deity it's been long corrupted by political domination and bad people. So no I don't believe in the bible or the Abrahamic path.

 

[ninJAS]

I am a Christian myself and do indeed believe in The Bible...it is as simple as that. I will not force my beliefs upon anyone but I will make a few points.

@obZen

- Homosexuality is considered an abomination and a sin in the eyes of God as various verses of The Bible state.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

As for your question about eating certain "unclean" foods this entry from Wikipedia about Peter's vision in Acts should shed some light on the issue.

"As the Book of Acts makes clear, Christians are not obligated to follow this holiness code. This is made clear in Peter's vision in Acts 10:15. Peter is told, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' In other words, there is no kosher code for Christians. Christians are not concerned with eating kosher foods and avoiding all others. That part of the law is no longer binding, and Christians can enjoy shrimp and pork with no injury to conscience."

 

[Oryx]

I am a Christian myself and do indeed believe in The Bible...it is as simple as that. I will not force my beliefs upon anyone but I will make a few points.

@obZen

- Homosexuality is considered an abomination and a sin in the eyes of God as various verses of The Bible state.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

As for your question about eating certain "unclean" foods this entry from Wikipedia about Peter's vision in Acts should shed some light on the issue.

"As the Book of Acts makes clear, Christians are not obligated to follow this holiness code. This is made clear in Peter's vision in Acts 10:15. Peter is told, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' In other words, there is no kosher code for Christians. Christians are not concerned with eating kosher foods and avoiding all others. That part of the law is no longer binding, and Christians can enjoy shrimp and pork with no injury to conscience."

Can you cite this in the original Hebrew? Because translations have been done for centuries by people who have a stake in making sure that their bigotry is supported by Bible verses.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

That can also be taken/read as it is wrong to have an affair with a man as it is wrong to have an affair with a woman.

Not that death is acceptable there either, but that's just the grumpy Old Testament deity for ya.



The extent of my belief is as outlined in the Apostles' Creed essentially. Got nothing to prove it's true or not true. That's the essence of belief. Also, I'm Italian so it comes with the territory culturally XD Not a staunch defender of the faith. In practice, largely family traditions through observing the sacraments.

 

[ninJAS]

Can't post full links yet because of my post count but I can break the links apart.

Was only able to find the Leviticus verses but that should at least let you know that it is indeed in the original Bible rather than being translated into it...

mechon-mamre (.org) /p/pt/pt0318 (.htm) LEV 18:22
mechon-mamre (.org) /p/pt/pt0320 (.htm) LEV 20:13

Just remove the parenthesis.

 

[Trickori]

The fundamental problem with a book like the bible is that one assumes it was written by a diety through a human. If someone today says they wrote a book on a god or goddess's command or allowed something to act through them -- we'd all think they were liars, fakers, or nuts. I ask you -- what makes you think that was any less true back then? Why do we take stock in something we know was written by humans? Why do we "write off" people who do it now?

 

[Oryx]

Can't post full links yet because of my post count but I can break the links apart.

Was only able to find the Leviticus verses but that should at least let you know that it is indeed in the original Bible rather than being translated into it...

mechon-mamre (.org) /p/pt/pt0318 (.htm) LEV 18:22
mechon-mamre (.org) /p/pt/pt0320 (.htm) LEV 20:13

Just remove the parenthesis.

http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php

Just because the English is put next to the Hebrew (modernized Hebrew mind you, not the ancient Hebrew it was written in) doesn't mean it's an accurate translation.

Note that I'm not saying that the interpretations in that site are the correct ones; what I'm saying is that there is no reason to assume that your religion necessarily backs up homophobic thoughts because some human being translated it into English in a way that backs you up once.

 

[ninJAS]

Every single person will have their own interpretation on anything they read. It is just human nature. I am not saying you are wrong and I'm not trying to force the issue that I am right I am simply stating my interpretations and beliefs on the subject.

I am sure that certain areas of The Bible has been changed slightly as it has been translated over and over again but the meaning is still there.

I am sorry I could find Hebrew that was "ancient enough" for your liking and I never said that the link I provided was a guaranteed accurate translation...it was just the only thing I could find with any shred of Hebrew text with it.