Many find these statements outrageous and offensive. I didn't come up with them, just believe them.
Do you instead mean that you believe that the broad themes are true, but that there are lots of details written by authors that are flawed?
To believe that it is "utterly" true indicates to me a capacity for doublethink bordering on total insanity.
If not, maybe try it. :) IMO there are reasonable and even compelling arguments about why the Bible is both inerrant and trustworthy.
I spent five years in seminary and believe, after significant investigation, that the Bible is utterly true.
Probably my favorite bit is when Genesis says that god decided people could not live longer than 120 years, then later goes on to name a ton of people who lived for hundreds of years. We also know today that there is at least one person who lived longer than 120 years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment .
And of course I won't even get into just how fantastically contradictory every gospel is with the others over quite a startling array of details of the story of the death and ascension of Jesus.
Yah, some of that stuff is admittedly hard, the different gospel narratives are right up there with the best of them. Although, I do believe they can be reconciled.
My apologies for assuming you were just parroting common internet wisdom.
Do miracles still happen or have they conveniently stopped happening in the modern world? If anything it would be easier to prove nowadays with most people walking around with cameras.
For example, I could ask: "How does the Bible help me be a better Python developer?" The most direct answer is, "It doesn't."
Biblical wisdom, in response, might say something like: "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world (e.g. be the best Python developer) and forfeit his soul?" And, if you believe that's a better and more important question, then the Bible starts to have value and insight.
I only have anecdotes regarding miracles. Usually from missionary settings. But, I've also realized that while miracles are frequent in the Bible particularly because they are extraordinary, most of the biblical timeline unfolds without mention of any miracles. I think it's probable miraculous signs are not nor expected to be commonplace.
At that point, one might as well turn to Buddhism or the wisdom in Hindu texts, which is as good as, if not better than wisdom in the Bible. The Bible would only be special if it was the word of God, but if it cannot give us any more insight into understanding our world than science can, it's a lost cause.
The Bible says that it is the divinely inspired word of God, that Jesus himself is the exclusive way to heaven and that all other religions are fabrications and devotion to them leads to hell. Hell is a real place, with real suffering brought on from disunity with God. Quite the wager imo.
> but if it cannot give us any more insight into understanding our world than science can, it's a lost cause
It’s surprising to me that especially in this year alone people cling to science as their religion. Modern medicine is effectively still alchemy in light of comprehensive knowledge of the human body. No scientist can recreate the human hand, eye or ear in perfect authenticity to all of its intricacies. It’s trite at this point to even mention all that we do not know of our own humanity. We can’t even fix depression with SSRI’s! We have no clue the true mechanism of action as it interacts with brain chemistry.
The Bible declares that in every individual, God created the very last detail of their existence. That before time began he knew you and I as individuals. Jesus came and rebuked fevers. Literally spoke to a fever to tell it to leave. He told bacteria or viruses to leave another humans body and it did. She was saved. Jesus can do that because he’s God. He can do that because he has comprehensive, complete, understanding of the human body. He designed it. He made it.
And if you truly believed that science were as flimsy as you appear to suggest, next time you fly somewhere, ask for a priest to fly the plane, not a pilot.
Science has its use, but in the grand scheme of things, science only helps us see the mirror dimly.
I haven’t been able to find a single contradiction that hasn’t been answered by a cogent explanation that includes the surrounding context, intertext references and ties to larger overarching themes. And believe me, I love and enjoy peering deeply into those holes.
Perhaps the beauty is that those 66 books written over centuries tell a continuous and noncontradicting story.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t difficult sections of scripture. There are things that come off as quotes that are actually paraphrases. There are different point of views between the gospels that insist 1 person was there when 2 people were in another account of the same situation. These are easily remedied when you consider the focus and theme of the book and the clear intentions of the author.
The authors are indeed flawed (as humans, standing in the pages of history), but they write with the inspiration of God himself and make no error in recording their account.
Happy to help with other concerns.
The animals were created globally first. Once Adam was created, God created animals again so Adam could see the process, understand that God is Creator, and participate in ruling over God's creation.
Interesting website choice. I spent a year as an agnostic because of that website before I started to realize there must be another perspective to consider.
I believe there are resources out there that can help someone to faithfully interpret. And the converse also. The skeptics annotated Bible being in the latter category IMO.
A: everything in this book is literally true
B: what about this passage where it says 3+4=9?
A: my interpretation of that passage is that the 9 represents a 7 in that particular context
The salient point being: that even if A has arrived at a literally true interpretation of the passage, the truth came from A, not from the passage. Further, although A believes they're arguing that the book is inerrant, what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
> what they're effectively claiming is that their interpretations are inerrant.
I don’t think A is claiming that, as the most basic understanding of Christianity understands that the individual is terribly flawed and errant.
If your presupposition for this conclusion is based on your earlier point might have either misstated something or you’re claiming a conclusion without an expressed premise.
Humans aren't rational beings that form conclusions by logically composing facts into a singular point. Instead humans are more prone to construct a scaffold of logic in order to support and existing belief. That site is picking and choosing passages in order to support a misguided belief.
Instead a person must start with no beliefs and formulate a conclusion from the facts. If you do this, it is undeniable that the bible is real.
I once told this to an atheist and he was astonished because my description of his subconscious behavior and lack of awareness was 100% what he thought I was doing.
This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't?
I also think you are being quite uncharitable to most atheists. The majority of us grew up in the church, have read the bible, utterly believed the bible was true, were devout believers, and generally were at some point quite indistinguishable from you or any other truly intellectual believer in terms of worldview.
It really was the kinds of contradictions the comment you replied to indicates, along with hundreds of others, and the absolute mental knots that had to be constructed in order to justify them that set me on the path of disbelief. This is the path for millions of people as they take a serious reckoning of their beliefs and with their holy books and do a fundamental reexamination of their entire worldview and belief structure.
I don't think that either of us is being disingenuous in our portrayal of our beliefs. That said, I really do think that your interpretation of what people are doing when they examine these contradictions and draw the conclusion of disbelief is, in fact, the theological equivalent of p-hacking is fundamentally untrue.
What verifiable facts are in the Bible?
Can any of the claimed miracles be replicated today? Say handling snakes or drinking poison, which has resulted in multiple deaths of believers.
Two religious people can't agree which parts of the Bible are literal and which are just a story, so it's funny to see accusations at the other side.
Lack of the ability to replicate something means that it is just hard to prove that something is true. Not being able to prove something to be true via replication does not mean it is not true.
You think I’m illogical. I think you’re illogical. In the end we’re just two Spidermans, pointing at each other.
>This makes me wonder do atheists even realize how unscientific and illogical they are? Are they constantly thinking that I'm the one that's illogical? Are humans so unaware of their own biases that we can never ever truly determine what is real and what isn't?
You're an atheist too, towards other religions like Islam, Hinduism etc. When you truly understand that your arguments against those religions go against Christianity too, you will understand atheists.
I don’t think you should be so confident that everyone else sees it this way.
If what everyone else thinks is a factor, than the majority of the world is not atheist.
Just using the linguistics of the word, "Atheists" are definitively people who do not believe in a theos, ie: a g/God. It would be nonsensical to call a polytheist or monotheist an atheist.
> When you truly understand that your arguments against those religions go against Christianity too...
Christianity is relatively unique[1] in the sense that it claims exclusivity to salvation through Jesus Christ. As it relates to your argument, this tenant allows Christians to make claims to spiritual supremacy. Interreligious comparisons are moot at that point.
[1] Conditioning that statement here, I can't keep up with all the world's religions
But you’re proceeding to form a logical, rational argument in saying this. How are we to ever understand what you’re intending?
A person born into atheism isn't just going to change sides as soon as he's presented with evidence that Christianity is real. Rather he will twist and bend the existing evidence in a way so as to support is current world view.
When you do place together all the facts, logically speaking, what follows is that the bible is real.
Atheism is non-belief.
I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential.
The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.”
This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”.
>I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential.
If you don't wish to continue arguing with me why the heck are you still highlighting things? The difference is pedantic. It's like talking about the difference between adding a negative number and subtracting a positive number.
You believe something exists.
You disbelieve something doesn't exist.
You believe something doesn't exist.
You disbelieve something doesn't exist.
>The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.”
The scientific method cannot ever discover the truth. Proof is the domain of math and logic. In science and therefore the real world, nothing can be proven. To quote Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Science is not about proving things to be true. The entire endeavor of science is an attempt to prove something false. Repeated failures to prove something false only indicates that something "might" be true.
This coupled with the fact that all observations tools in science have limited accuracy and limited precision makes it such that even the act of disproof is done through the lens of probability. Or in other words, nothing can really be disproven either. This is a bit philosophical and a bit too pedantic but the point is to illustrate that I understand the scientific method to a degree greater than even most atheists.
>This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”.
Let me reiterate my point. My stance is not faith-based. It is self-evident logic. Every religious person you talk to parrots the buzz word of "faith" but really what they are saying to you is that their "belief" to them is as logical and rational as science is to you.
For example, I don't lack a belief that an elephant is in my living room, I have a positive belief that there is no such elephant.
You must willfully ignore all the hard questions you can't answer.
But the "teachings" basically boil down to "treat others how you would like to be treated. There is nothing god like in that... its pure evolutionary pragmatism.
The egyptians kept stellar records and there's no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years. It's hard to fathom that'd go unnoticed.
It's also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would've lived...so how can that be infallible if it's passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game?
The best evidence is that the egyptians were very biased in what was recorded in ways that would be likely to have survived (triumphs, yes, defeats, not so much) and that even when things were recorded, events and persons who later fell into disfavor were actively eradicated from the kind of durable, monumental records that would be most likely to survive.
> and there’s no record of 100k people wandering the wilderness of a 20 mile stretch of land for 40 years.
What 20 mile stretch of land are you talking about? With the classical (but probably wrong) association of the Yam Suph with the Gulf of Suez, the “wilderness” would have been (or at least started) on the Sinai Peninsual, which is more than 20 miles in either dimension. (There’s a number of other interpretations of the Yam Suph, including the Gulf of Aqaba, which would have put the wilderness in (again, starting in) Arabia. (There’s good reasons to doubt the Exodus story, but you’ve completely missed the real ones: while the absence of records of the actual Exodus is much less surprising than you make, the absence of evidence of anything like the population that supposedly took part in it ever existing in Egypt at any time in order to leave in the Exodus is the big one.)
> It’s also a fact that the books of moses were first written down about 800 years after he would’ve lived…so how can that be infallible if it’s passed by word of mouth.... Ever play the telephone game?
Societies with high literacy may not be good at maintaining stable oral traditions, but those without it are known to be. Even if that weren’t true, mundane written documents aren’t infallible either, believing in infallible writing usually involves invoking a special divine gift of inspiration. But if that works for writing, there’s no reason it can’t work for oral tradition, or for writing that is remote from events.
There are other things in the Bible that challenge me more than textual criticism.
On the flip side, I'd say the core "rationalization" I have for my belief is what the Bible teaches about sin. It's obvious to me something is very wrong with with the world we live in. I think the Bible explains convincingly both what's wrong and what the fix is.
Paul’s teaching here is that he’s not permitting women to be teachers in the church. That in God’s decreed order everyone has a role. Male and female have roles to fill and duties unique to their sex. This isn’t misandry or misogyny. Men and women complement each other. Male nor female, there is no difference in dignity and worth.
Most people accept that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. But this is only accurate within the math realm, which is a purely abstract concept. There's no such thing as "2" in the physical world.
I view most religions in a similar way, they are a form of truth, that exist within their abstract realm.
I read a fantasy novel once that had a character that believed in religion. All of them. At the same time. Sincerely.
I always admired him.
…wat.
ಠ_ಠ
At this point, society has quite a lot of science and engineering relying on the fact that numbers have objective meaning in the physical world.
Similarly, according to QM, the number of fundamental particles in any system is not well-defined. They’re constantly appearing and disappearing.
How do you count “people”? Easily and consistently? What about conjoined twins? Still doable? What if the twins are highly asymmetric with one twin just a bump on the head of the other? Just a few cells? Shared brain but seperate bodies? Still easy to “count”?
Zero functioning engines will not.
Yeah, pretty easy to count.
Etc…
Reality is much more squishy than you might think.
If there is indeed a point you’re trying to make, I think it’s lost on me.
People like their idealised models of the world, but they're fundamentally still just idealised and models.
It's somewhat illuminating to learn that all abstractions are leaky.
For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database. It's not just "M" or "F". You can have "unknown" (of course), "known but not willing to say" (whatever), intersex of all sorts, transexuals, genetically XY but physiologically female, etc...
The world is complicated and messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
Similarly, there's no clear demarcation between species in many cases.
There's no such thing as a "tree" either: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th...
I could go on and on.
You appear to be presenting these ideas as though they would be new to me, which they aren't. In fact, these ideas are essentially pop-science[0].
Incidentally, the rhetoric you are employing is also used by Flat Earthers[1], so well done for that, I suppose.
> For example, you can't reliably represent "sex" using a "bit" type in a database
This example you've swiftly jumped to is a little too on the nose for me to not read it as bait. Did you think you'd found a bible-bashing Trump-voting conservative to argue against?
> I could go on and on.
Yes, I can see that. I will however once again invite you to try and articulate a point that you're trying to make.
Sounds like, just your opinion, man.