Saying, "I assume the bible is real" is similar to saying, "I think the bible is real".

I believe that the bible is real. It is not a fake book that a guy decided to write when he was bored, it is a collection of stories from different people. Many things were documented in the bible thousands of years before scientists could prove them experimentally. (i.e. roundness of the earth)

Mmm.. well this area of the forums seem to move rather slowly, so why don't we start discussing? People can jump in as we go along.

Since this thread is titled "Assumptions About the Bible", that's what we'll be discussing. The first thing that needs addressing is the nature of evidence.

Contrary to popular belief, evidence does not and can not "speak for itself". Evidence is not an animate thing, so it cannot do anything of its own accord. It can't breathe, support, walk, or talk on its own. We all have the same evidence, and if it spoke for itself, we would all draw the same conclusions from the evidence. However, we interpret evidence through our worldviews.

A worldview is a set of fundamental beliefs about the universe and the way things work which we assume (without proof) ahead of time. These individual assumptions are called presuppositions. Some of the things we all presuppose are the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses, and the reliability of our memories. There's no way we could go about proving any of these things.

While all people agree about some presuppositions, there are also some differences in our worldviews. The biblical Christian, like myself, assumes that there is a God, and that He revealed Himself in His inerrant word, the Bible. The secularist does not share these presuppositions.

Knowing that we interpret evidence through our worldviews and understanding that Christians and secularists have different worldviews, we can begin to see why we draw such different conclusions from evidence. A Christian sees the Grand Canyon and sees evidence of the destructive global flood described in Genesis. A secularist looks at the Grand Canyon and sees evidence of slow and gradual processes causing geologic change. A Christian looks adaptation within a species and sees evidence of God's creativity and power, instilling genetic potential in organisms when He first created them. A secularist looks at this and sees the baby steps of evolution. Any number of examples could be listed.

Furthermore, if someone is philosophically astute, they will always be able to come up with a reinterpretation of evidence, whether they are right or wrong, that is consistent with their worldview. Both sides, secular and Christian, accuse the other side of interpreting the evidence wrongly and making unreasonable excuses to protect their belief.

At this point, the secularist likes to make the claim that Christians are biased for assuming that God exists and that the Bible is true, and as such won't draw reasonable conclusions from evidence. The secularist likes to think that they start from a neutral vantage point, weighing the evidence carefully and objectively, and then they make their decisions regarding God and the Bible. The problem is (and if you get nothing else out of this post, get this) neutrality in a worldview issue does not exist.

When it comes to the Bible, you are either for it or against it, right from the start. Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me, he who does not gather to Me scatters," Romans says "The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God" and James says "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." It's clear that the claim of neutrality is itself unbiblical. Therefore, anyone who claims to be neutral is saying that the Bible is wrong, which means they're not neutral.

Therefore, there is really no neutral vantage point. You either assume that the Bible is true or that it is false.

Note: Polar, thinking the Bible is true and assuming the Bible is true are similar things, but if you assume the Bible is true, that's a decision you make before interpreting evidence.

From my view as a christian:
I believe the bible is true

The bible was written mostly by Paul except for the gospels which were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They give the story of Jesus's life which are all the same.

We'll know at the end.

Anyway, there are many things in the bible that explain things that couldn't have happened any other way.
Example: Life from nothing. How do you explain that without god creating us?Chemical reactions can't even make life without something that's already living.

Many people say that they need to see things to believe. You have to do the opposite. You need to believe so that you can see. Once you believe, you will be able to see god not physically, but spritually. And you will find him in all things.

The bible isn't something you read and think about why it couldn't be real. You read and reflect it into your life than be rewarded at the end.

Ponk

Exactly.

I don't like to think of God as an all-powerful superbeing capable of ending life as we know it within a blink of an eye, rather I think of him as the manifestation, or personification, of all that is good in the world, the beauty of nature and the human prowess. I like to think of Him as the bar that those who otherwise have no support cling to; the friend the otherwise lonely would have. I don't think He's alive on his own, I think our collective conciousness and faith in Him is what makes him alive.

As for the Bible argument, I'd say I can't decide on it. Whether it is actual historical fact, or fact blown out of proportion or otherwise a tale with a greater truth we'll never know for sure, but it provides an explanation to those who thirst for it in this vast unknown stretch we call the universe, and fills the gaps that science had not yet filled.

here comes ducky to spoil everyones day

i seriously dont know why there is a poll like this here.
the old testament alone should show that the bible is borderline worthless.
talking snakes, talking donkeys, sorcerors summoning snakes (moses vs pharoah), sorceror controlling water, dragons! witches and wizards, the bible basically challenges harry potter in terms of fiction.


read revelations. VERY ENTERTAINING.



most authors are unaccounted for and unknown.

the greeks knew the earth was round before such infomation was included into the new testament... i think it was aristotle who made the observation by watching the shadow of an eclipse. also ships on the horizon show up mast first.

scientists are yet to find donkeys that speak human.

scientists are yet to find rabbits that chew cud.

scientists are yet to find any evidence of a global flood

"A Christian sees the Grand Canyon and sees evidence of the destructive global flood described in Genesis."
speak for yourself and other fundamentalists/creationists. most christians take such trivial stories as just that, stories, grand canyon couldnt have been formed by violent receding floodwaters. most christians feel that the flood story is merely a moral story, not to be taken literally.

"Example: Life from nothing. How do you explain that without god creating us?Chemical reactions can't even make life without something that's already living."
abiogenesis is a relatively new scientific field, give it a couple decades to cement itself alongside other fields of science and there may be some actual workable theories, currently suggested is RNA world or iron sulphur world abiogenesis. well, those are the only two ive studied that hold weight. either way, the logical jump to "GODIDIT" is not the way to go. the correct method is "current status is unknown, find out with empirical evidence."

"I think of him as the manifestation, or personification, of all that is good in the world, the beauty of nature and the human prowess."
you better not touch the old testament then.
oh and his treatment of himself in the new testament isnt that awesome either.

alrighty. time for me to annoy and elucidate.

bible is to be assumed wrong simply because it is flawed. the jewish texts are copied. meticulously. by hand. at a certain point, there are 4 dots, they mean nothing, current speculation points to it being a transcribing error where some ink was spilt/was on the scribes sleeve and over looked since its 4 dots in a several thousand character long scroll.
the jewish people know that they cannot take their texts literally since, god's word is perfect, human's copying the word appears to have made mistakes. spelling mistakes can be spotted but cannot be corrected for as you only copy not change. ergo, such texts are not god's word. the bible is not as well copied nor preserved as the jewish texts which have a culture to scribing and copying.

to take the flood and genesis literally when the jews, who the text originally belonged too can tell you you are wrong if not moronic for taking it literally then i guess you are moronic.

now the bible...

how many people here know who Yeshua/Yehoshua is? prounounced like a throaty sneeze. Yeshua is Jesus's most likely name in aramaic, his spoken language and Yehoshua is his name in Hebrew, the written language at the time. the greeks had no such translation for his name and as such did as well as they could and the transliteration Jesus remains instead of a more suitable "Joshua"

the KJV, one of the most celebrated and widely used versions is from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. translation errors creep in at each step. each step corrupting the text further, little nuances in the text get lost, new ones are formed accidentally. the english bible you read today is not even comparable to the orginal. not only that, people make their individual interpretation of the text, the writers when confronted with a phrase that has two possible meanings would pick one, and the other would be lost.

you cannot take this text as accurate. harry potter is more accurate in the depiction of an ordinary english child then the bible is in the following of the life of jesus, his entire angsty puberty years are left out... goes from baby jesus, to adult jesus.

not only this, but the new testament was mostly written 60-70 years after jesus's death, i think one of the books is written a whopping 120 years or something after death.
60-70 is roughly 2-3 generations. any information kept is likely corrupted, lost of made up from scratchy tales passed on from their parents at this point. some notes may be original, but a lot is basically meshed together based on the unknown authors opinion.

this isnt historical fact, the mere note that the council of nicea compiled and removed various books from the canon just goes to show how historic accuracy is denied in the name of faith.

matthew and mark have unknown authors (some believe matthew to be a poor copy of mark or vice versa, their contents are alarmingly similiar). paul had obvious ulterior motives while the rest of the books cant be fully accounted for although some have verified authors. if you dont know who wrote it (please dont be stupid and say its the name of the book (eg. mark wrote mark) because that is established as incorrect) how can you claim its legitimacy?

so... i examine the evidence - the bible you see today is the fictitious corrupted compilation by unknown people - and i come to the logical conclusion that no, it isnt correct. most jews are smart enough to not take their texts literally, why would some christians take the jewish texts literally.

One last thing. using a "worldview" as an excuse for bias is still bias. no, humans cannot maintain a fully objective outlook, but to start with a presupposition and maintain it is correct despite contrary evidence isnt a worldview, it is a mental disability i like to call, fundamentalism.

one can always try to interpret the evidence and then come to assumptions, last i checked, thats how good science works. creationism and good science are mutually exclusive.

touching electrode hurts me. assumption, electrode gives me something that causes pain.
assumption, electrode gives me superpowers. touching electrode gives me a feeling, it must be superpowers.

THATS A BIG POST. DUCKY OUT.

Read it many times over, one of the more interesting parts of the Bible.

I don't think much of the Bible as historical fact; all I was saying was that most people would take it as one, like you said, instead of reading between the lines and seeing a greater truth.

Also, the Bible has been used to speak out against other religions/people (even Christians) that had done the writers or their people wrong, or just basically disagreed with their customs. Have you noticed that the Ten plagues of Egypt basically called out the Egyptian gods?

have you noticed there is no record of EVERY first born egyptian dying? other then in the old testament of course

more importantly, if Mister omnibenevolent god is so good and righteous

imagine you are a little 6 year old egyptian boy, you are not perfect, in fact you are a little rascal like all kids your age are... one day, the pharoah, some god guy several hundred kilometres away disagrees with moses and you die.

GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS. lolololol

as i maintain, the old testament is awesome.

2 Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version) (MY FAVOURITE PASSAGE)

23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

i do not believe the literal words of the bible is true as mr ducky pointed out there are many points were error can and were made as well as it being manipulated on purpose, there a whole 1000 year period where the only european version of the bible was in latin so only priests could read it imagine all the things they could have changed to fit their needs


and this picture of the all loving and caring god has been distorted mixed with jesus

god is the father and he acts like one trying to teach his children
he punishes those that are bad so they learn and forgives those who admit their wrongs

jesus is kind gentle healer of the sick guide of the lost

it is important not to mix the two

there are several instances in the bible where mass murder is ok with god and therefore he can't be all loving so it contradicts itself and i doubt god would make that mistake

now having said that i do believe in god jesus the prophets and the underlying meaning of the bible just not the literal meaning of the bible

I won't reply to every point, since that's what led me quitting last time- debates expand exponentially to the point where a post takes up half a page. However, there are a couple of specific things I'd like to address.

Ducky, you said "scientists are yet to find rabbits that chew cud." How do you know this? And how do the scientists know whether or not a rabbit chews cud? If you're trusting that the senses and memories of yourself and the scientists are reliable, then you're being inconsistent with your worldview. If we're ultimately chemical accidents, then there's no reason to think that our senses or our memories are reliable. In order for our senses and ability to remember things to be preserved and passed, they merely have to increase our survival value. Survival value does not equate with knowing truth. As long as I'm able to survive and reproduce, then my senses do not have to correspond to reality and my memory does not have to actual record things which happened. Your senses and memory might even only be the side effects of a chemical reaction! Furthermore, if our brains are ultimately the products of chemical reactions, then there's no reason to think that we should be able to properly understand reality and the universe. Since our thoughts are merely the products of chemical reactions, there's no reason to think those chemical reactions produce accurate depictions of how things work or how things are.

Also, some tried to point out or imply that the Bible is self-contradictory. I disagree with this claim, but if it were true, in your worldviews, why would this necessarily be wrong? Why can't two propositions which are mutually exclusive (contradictory) both be true?