Is there proof at all of the bible being true?

[LilMamiBella]

So I do think there is a God. It sounds better than the big bang theory that's for sure but the thing holding me back from going to church is proof. Is there any proof that any of the stuff in the bible is true? How do we not know this isn't a fairytale book or something people made up to comfort themselves (that there is an afterlife)? I'm talking about like Moses, Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, Jesus,etc. I do feel something like a fraud going there because I can't get up and sing for something that I'm not sure of, yk?

[genifer]

Im not sure about proof Lilmama, but for me, personally, there's more then enough proof. Some people, even christians, are happy to say its myth and such, but I believe its true bc the experiences the people of the bible, Moses, Abraham, etc, of 'meeting' with God are the same as the experiences I have with him. I do not care what anyone says to refute this, I know my experiences with God are real. The thing with the bible is that it was written by lots of different people. Those people are linked together by their common experiences of how God burst into their lives. Ive realised that this kind of understanding comes with belief in Jesus Christ. So I guess the question to ask yourself would be where you stand with Him? I know you'll get lots of different answers here tho. I would suggest you might take time to humbly pray to God for guidance in this. It takes years sometimes tho, so dont give up. Thats my .02 penneth worth.

[beckyand3littlemonsters]

personally i've not a clue, my dad has read the bible cover to cover and does not bellieve it but me, how can you prove/disprove something that supposidly happened thousands of years ago it's hard to say it is a romatic notion to say when you die you go up to heaven and are surrounded by angels and all things beautiful and lovely and you will again meet any loved ones you have lost but as no one can tell you if this happens you can't say if it is or isn't true. i like to bellieve to bellieve there is something out there, that we do have some sought of purpose and that we don't just die and fade away to nothing, but if you asked do i bellieve the virgin birth i would probebly say no, but then again you can technicly (sp) get virgin births its called ai but i doubt that is what they meant.
i'll never belittle someones religion if someone where to message me a link about a religion they bellieve in i would look, but may not bellieve and would like to be then respected if i choose not to.
i probebly have not answered your question here, i'm pretty good at posting nonsence lol
hopefully others can be more help

[LilMamiBella]

I have contacted the church that my dh and kids go to and they recommended Case for Christ and Mere Christianity. I never read the latter. I'm just wondering if there is more to that? Like have archaeologists found anything? Do other religions mention it?

[lizziebits]

I'm not sure about the Old Testament in terms of historical accuracy. I'm sure there is a lot of people who have done research on it, but I'm just not familiar with it.

I do know that there is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus existed. Of course, whether he is who he claimed to be is a matter of faith. Have you read Case for Christ? I believe he goes through a lot of evidence type stuff about the existence of Jesus. Mere Christianity is an excellent book, but it is more philosophical.

[paxye]

Originally Posted by LilMamiBella

So I do think there is a God. It sounds better than the big bang theory that's for sure but the thing holding me back from going to church is proof. Is there any proof that any of the stuff in the bible is true? How do we not know this isn't a fairytale book or something people made up to comfort themselves (that there is an afterlife)? I'm talking about like Moses, Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, Jesus,etc. I do feel something like a fraud going there because I can't get up and sing for something that I'm not sure of, yk?

Looking at it from a Religious studies point of view (my degree) the bible is a collection of stories... some may be historical in some senses but most were told for hundreds (or thousands) of years before they were written down for the Torah (Old testament) and the Christian Bible (New Testament)...

If you look at it historically, many of the stories come from other myths and stories and were adapted for the times and places they were were told and were done so for very important reasons.

It is also nearly impossible to talk about truth and Myth when coming from different perspectives.

Here is a quote that I find explains this well...

A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality.

In a deeper sense, which is employed by students of religion, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for a people, a story that reminds them who they are and why they do what they do. When a story is called as a myth in this sense---which we can call Myth with a capital M---the focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function. This orienting and mobilizing function is possible, moreover, only because Myths with a capital M have religious overtones. Such a Myth is a Sacred Story.

However, although to note that a story functions as a Myth in the religious sense is not necessarily to deny its truth, a story cannot function as a Sacred Myth within a community or nation unless it is believed to be true. In most cases, moreover, the truth of the Myth is taken on faith. It is not a matter of debate. If some people have the bad taste to question the truth of the Sacred Story, the keepers of the faith do not enter into debate with them. Rather, they ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.

~David Ray Griffin (

oops... ds sent that before I was finished...

So for those who are religious and believe in a religion, the stories are believed to be true, but if you look at it from outside the religion, or even with an open mind within he religion (as a few of my Profs did) then you can see the Myths for what they are and what they are meant to do and the historical accuracy doesn't need to change their function.

[doubledutch]

way OT, but, paxye! holy smokes, i "know" you from another board, from a long time ago, which you weren't even on anymore when i was, but you were famous there and people would link back to your old posts (as if they were another kind of scripture). small world . . .

[paxye]

Originally Posted by doubledutch

way OT, but, paxye! holy smokes, i "know" you from another board, from a long time ago, which you weren't even on anymore when i was, but you were famous there and people would link back to your old posts (as if they were another kind of scripture). small world . . .

lol... really? you have gotten my curiosity... you'll have to pm me and tell me more...

[Liquesce]

I would probably actually agree with reading Mere Christianity more than anything else, in that it expresses a great many thoughts about the nature of your question and hesitation directly.

[LilMamiBella]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

I would probably actually agree with reading Mere Christianity more than anything else, in that it expresses a great many thoughts about the nature of your question and hesitation directly.

Thanks.. I'm sure I checked it out of the library before but never got to it. This time I'll stick with it. Any other recommendations while I'm looking?

[GoBecGo]

Historically there is some evidence that Christ existed and that something not entirely dissimilar to his story as stated in the Bible did occur (he was born, became unpopular with certain people and was executed). But it is not firm. History isn't that sort of science, and history is always written with bias (whether in the bible or any other text one might rely on). It is possible to use the Bible as an historical text when examining the periods of history it refers to, but one must do so, as with all texts, with a very critical eye - when one extrapolates a picture of a period in history from ANY text one must never forget that it is only as reliable as the current evidence one has and there are plenty of misled historians documented by their peers and successors in the history books themselves. As to the old testament, most of that is so old there are no other contemporary sources to use for comparison. That doesn't mean it isn't true, it means it's not easy or more often possible to verify it.

To be honest there is more physical evidence (readable in the physical state of the universe as it is now) for the Big Bang than for God, and if you are not convinced by it i doubt you will find enough to "convince" you of religion. I would suggest that you want to believe it because of a spark of faith within you, and my 2c is that you should allow yourself to explore that, and try to leave the heavier questions to one side for awhile. If the religious path is the right one for you you will begin to feel that truth is The Truth for you. As the saying goes, for a man without faith no evidence is enough, and for one with faith no evidence is required.

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by paxye

Looking at it from a Religious studies point of view (my degree) the bible is a collection of stories... some may be historical in some senses but most were told for hundreds (or thousands) of years before they were written down for the Torah (Old testament) and the Christian Bible (New Testament)...

If you look at it historically, many of the stories come from other myths and stories and were adapted for the times and places they were were told and were done so for very important reasons.

It is also nearly impossible to talk about truth and Myth when coming from different perspectives.

Here is a quote that I find explains this well...



oops... ds sent that before I was finished...

So for those who are religious and believe in a religion, the stories are believed to be true, but if you look at it from outside the religion, or even with an open mind within he religion (as a few of my Profs did) then you can see the Myths for what they are and what they are meant to do and the historical accuracy doesn't need to change their function.

This is how I see it within the religion (Christianity). I do not view the Bible as literally true, but honestly, letting go of the need for it to be literally true has opened it up to the deep spiritual truths of God and Jesus for me. Reading modern (mainstream) scholarship is a good place to get a different view on the issue of whether the Bible is historically accurate, meant to be literal, and other issues. Marcus Borg is my favorite author right now on the topic. His books have helped me drop my former literal view of the Bible and embrace the deep metaphorical truths held within it.

[Bluegoat]

Well, some parts of the Bible are meant to be historical and others aren't, for a start. Some parts are theological, so if you want to know if those parts are true you will need to judge them on theological/philosophical grounds.

As far as the historical parts, if you hold them up to the same standard as other sources, they seem to do fairly well. But if you are looking for specific evidence that the stories about Abraham, for example, are true, you just won't find them. How could you? Where would it come from? You won't find any historical evidence for the vast majority of people who have ever lived either though. History cannot give us that kind of surety.

The NT is more recent and we have more documents around it, as a pp mentioned. There is some extra-Biblical written evidence of Jesus. As well, we have documents written by people who knew the apostles. And there are tons of writings about Christ that show up suddenly not long after his life, of varying quality and authenticity.

With history, you have to decide to some extent what level of evidence is enough for you.

And as a side note, I agree that scientific theories often have more compelling evidence than many historical questions. The Big Bang is a pretty good theory, though not all scientists subscribe to it. But in any case, it isn't in opposition to religious belief, there are lots of Christians who believe in the Big Bang.

[smeisnotapirate]

I agree with Bluegoat - there are plenty of religious people who believe in the Big Bang.

I guess I would ask - why are you concerned about it being Truth? Even if Jesus never lived, never was the messiah, never healed the sick and cured the blind - does it matter? Does it invalidate the message and lessons that Jesus taught?

In the same vein, is fiction any less of a genre than non-fiction? Because if TRUTH is so important, then what's the point of the great classics? If we can only learn from Truth, why read great and influential books at all if they're fiction?

Sorry, I guess the question itself confuses me. But I'm not Christian, so it could be my perspective.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

I guess I would ask - why are you concerned about it being Truth? Even if Jesus never lived, never was the messiah, never healed the sick and cured the blind - does it matter? Does it invalidate the message and lessons that Jesus taught?

In the same vein, is fiction any less of a genre than non-fiction? Because if TRUTH is so important, then what's the point of the great classics? If we can only learn from Truth, why read great and influential books at all if they're fiction?

Sorry, I guess the question itself confuses me. But I'm not Christian, so it could be my perspective.

There is a substantial difference between learning a lesson from something or finding beauty in something and believing it portrays an accurate depiction of physical reality. I take lessons from and my perspective is enriched by any number of paths, stories, and the like, but if I believed my religion only amounted to fodder for personal enrichment I wouldn't be my religion, I'd be someone who simply appreciates the works of my religion. Make sense? On a certain level ("What was the deal with Jonah and that fish?") I can see your point, but with regard to Christianity, "Would the lessons of Jesus be invalidated by him having not existed?" ... well, no, the lessons would not, but the claims of the religion still would.

[smeisnotapirate]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

There is a substantial difference between learning a lesson from something or finding beauty in something and believing it portrays an accurate depiction of physical reality. I take lessons from and my perspective is enriched by any number of paths, stories, and the like, but if I believed my religion only amounted to fodder for personal enrichment I wouldn't be my religion, I'd be someone who simply appreciates the works of my religion. Make sense? On a certain level ("What was the deal with Jonah and that fish?") I can see your point, but with regard to Christianity, "Would the lessons of Jesus be invalidated by him having not existed?" ... well, no, the lessons would not, but the claims of the religion still would.

Ok, so maybe it is my perspective that's making me confused on this. I don't have a central figure in which belief is essential (well, except G-d ).

[MyLittleWonders]

I can agree with your idea that if Jesus never really lived or taught what he taught, then the religion might be for naught. They would be good lessons to live by, but would lack the spiritual-transforming power, in my opinion. But, if he was not born of a virgin Mary, if he did not bodily rise on the third day, if Jonah did not really spend three days in the belly of a whale ... those concepts have no bearing on my faith in God and the power of his love. To me, the Bible was written by men who tried to put into the only language they had to write of their relationship to God, and the wonder of God in their lives. Much of it also has to do with hope in God's way triumphing over the way of the world (for instance, God's wisdom, which Paul calls God's foolishness, triumphing over Roman Imperial Theology). Some was written to bring together a people in the midst of some of the worst conditions, such as the Babylonian exile. Some was written as beautiful poetry extolling the wonder of creation (the Creation story). There may be historically-accurate timing in there, but I think when we get caught into the literalness of the Bible and get hung up on issues such as whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or just a one-time virgin, or who really was at the tomb on that Resurrection Sunday, we completely miss the entire point of the Bible - that people throughout time have been transformed by the infinite love of God, that his ways (nonviolence, justice, compassion) are a better way than the ways of the world (violence, domination, annihilation), and that Jesus was a God-bearer and a Way-shower. We miss the life that we can have right now.

I have read The Case for Christ. I'm not big on more fundamentalist, conservative, evangelical apologetics (though ironically I attend a more evangelical church). Reading modern scholarship on the subject of the Bible, on specific issues such as the pre-Easter Jesus versus the post-Easter Jesus and which of the letters attributed to Paul were actually authored by Paul, has done much to strengthen my faith.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by smeisnotapirate

Ok, so maybe it is my perspective that's making me confused on this. I don't have a central figure in which belief is essential (well, except G-d ).

So think of it as being not so far removed from, "If god didn't really exist ..."

[zinemama]

You might want to check out Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Ri.../dp/0060630353

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by zinemama

You might want to check out Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Ri.../dp/0060630353

Thank you for the recommendation; I put it on hold at the library (yay for a library with a big collection of books!).