EPTOn October 28 2007 06:03 JesusCruxRH wrote:
I had a discussion with my flatmate last night regarding the accuracy of the Bible. We were just chatting on MSN (haha yes we're that bad even though we're just down the hallway from one another) and he asked about how the words could be trusted due to the number of times it's been translated?
I had a discussion with my flatmate last night regarding the accuracy of the Bible. We were just chatting on MSN (haha yes we're that bad even though we're just down the hallway from one another) and he asked about how the words could be trusted due to the number of times it's been translated?
This is a dubious question IMO. What is meant by "accuracy" of the Bible? Like the quote on the bottom will say, it isn't a scientific textbook. It's not a handbook. It's not even a book (there are many separate books, separate authors, etc.) Reading it like it is supposed to be a "true story" is incredibly naive, given the style and the writing tradition it comes out of. Some historical facts are mixed in, sure. Some aren't completely bogus. That doesn't mean the part where he walks on water must be true. Miracles were commonly attributed to great people--look at writings from the same period and you'll see that it is very much something to do with the way people wrote and told stories about people during this time, and you will see the Bible in a whole other light. And stop wondering whether it is an accurate record.
Anyhow, I couldn't really think of a rationale explanation without referring to books etc. so I just said most atheists who do attack the Bible generally attack it based on their disagreements with its values rather than its historical accuracy. But I think it's important to cover that as well, so starting today I'll post a little bit from books I've read (mostly Lee Strobel) to inform anyone who is interested about the Bible's accuracy.
Note I'm too lazy to write it in my own words so most of it will be just straight book to computer transcripts, but with me cropping here and there for the sake of removing opinions and bits I don't think are as necessary to paste (saves youse from reading whole chapters, if you get what I mean). Not all answers will be answered at once, so it'd be appreciated if any comments were limited to what is being discussed in the paraphrases, as further subjects will be touched upon as I write them up.
Today - since we've been discussing it recently, the accuracy of scientific claims in the Bible.
(spoiler tag remove)The Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.
Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at least, lethal at worst.
Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing" (Job 26:7). In the eighth century BCE, Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). A Spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support - does not that description sound remarkably modern?
Note I'm too lazy to write it in my own words so most of it will be just straight book to computer transcripts, but with me cropping here and there for the sake of removing opinions and bits I don't think are as necessary to paste (saves youse from reading whole chapters, if you get what I mean). Not all answers will be answered at once, so it'd be appreciated if any comments were limited to what is being discussed in the paraphrases, as further subjects will be touched upon as I write them up.
Today - since we've been discussing it recently, the accuracy of scientific claims in the Bible.
(spoiler tag remove)The Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.
Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at least, lethal at worst.
Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing" (Job 26:7). In the eighth century BCE, Isaiah clearly referred to "the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). A Spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support - does not that description sound remarkably modern?
It is easy to find a sentence here or there that goes either way, esp. if you include new testament writings. It is misleading to talk about "The Bible" and then use examples from the old testament, as evidence that the "whole bible" is an achievement. Look at it this way. If some new religion came along, included its new cannon plus the old testament and called their creation "The Book", and then said "see, in (old testament example) The Book proves to know such and such. And that's what's going on here if you use old testament examples to say The Bible "knew" the earth was round. If you look hard enough you'll also find the same "book" knew the earth was flat.
Written about 1500 BCE, the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste (Leviticus 13:1-5, Numbers 19:1-13, Deuteronomy 23:13, 14).()
It doesn't take a miracle to figure out this, just common sense. The idea of cleanliness comes from experience, not God, and we didn't need to know the microscopic workings of it before we could have a general sense of it.
In conclusion, I feel like the post I responded to, tries to lend some credibility to "The Bible" as true because it seems to have taken some stances that panned out (when read selectively). The talk of "The Bible" as a single book ignores the whole issue of legitimately linking the old testament with the new, and basically is presenting a case that "since this and that book turned out to be right on these various 50/50 guesses, the whole cannon may actually be from God and everything it said really happened." I know no one said this explicitly but that seems to be what the implication seems to be aiming at.
I'm sure we could all find beliefs in various ancient books that turned out to "sound right" right now. That will never be a basis for following the teachings of the religion of that book; or the teachings of that book. More to the point, this would never mean that we should take every sentence from such books as true facts.
Facts from God (what do you mean by "God"?). Etc.
