Is there proof at all of the bible being true? - Page 3

[genifer]

Merpk, I know you may find this offensive so Ill apologise in advance. First of all I believe the op was about the Christian bible in its entirety, Old and New Testaments. That being said we believe that the two testaments combined complete the bible and compliment it, that the Old Testament isnt complete without the New Testament.

I was waiting for your response about the combining of fabrics anyway, thanks for clearning that up.

So why do people who do not believe in it anyway care "is the Bible true"? It's obviously not true for them.

I care a great deal about whether the bible is true, and yes, my scriptures, being a christian are different from your scriptures, being jewish. The bible in this case is referring to the Old and New Testaments. Or thats my understanding, and as I said before, the old testament, according to my understanding is complimented and completed by the new testament.

[merpk]

Originally Posted by genifer

Merpk, I know you may find this offensive so Ill apologise in advance. First of all I believe the op was about the Christian bible in its entirety, Old and New Testaments. That being said we believe that the two testaments combined complete the bible and compliment it, that the Old Testament isnt complete without the New Testament.

I was waiting for your response about the combining of fabrics anyway, thanks for clearning that up.



I care a great deal about whether the bible is true, and yes, my scriptures, being a christian are different from your scriptures, being jewish. The bible in this case is referring to the Old and New Testaments. Or thats my understanding, and as I said before, the old testament, according to my understanding is complimented and completed by the new testament.

Not offended in the least.





The OP doesn't specify the Christian scriptures. She does mention Jesus once. (Her other three specific Biblical references come from the Jewish Bible.) She just asks "is there proof that the Bible is true."

I guess I don't come from the automatic assumption that "the Bible" means Christian. But thanks for the reminder of the assumption's existence. Am no longer in a Christian-majority space, so it's easy to forget the assumption rules.

[LilMamiBella]

I'm sorry Merpk I was talking about the Christian bible. What I didn't understand was why Christians like to refer to Leviticus 18:22 that is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." But other parts of Leviticus they do not do, yk? My mom who has gotten very religious talks to me about how being a lgbt is a sin but yet she isn't worried about how she cuts her hair or that she likes to eat shrimp and wearing polyester. The bible says that those are abominations as well.

[paxye]

Originally Posted by merpk

Well, goodness gracious me. There's your problem right there.

The original text (I'm not working with a translation here, but if you like, I can suggest one) is a prohibition against shatnez, which is a prohibition against wearing clothes made of a combination of wool and linen.

There's no prohibition against other fabric combinations; only wool and linen together.
"

Thanks for clearing that up. That proves exactly why I think that in translating, meanings are changed. There are many words that simply don't exist is other languages so the meaning gets lost... There are so many translations of the texts that have been brought even further from the texts but are taken as literal truth even though there are paraphrased versions.

I wish I could read the original texts and maybe would have been able to if I would have continued in my studies... but two years of Hebrew doesn't stick around long... I can still sound it out, but have no idea what I am reading anymore.

Which circles back perfectly to what I said upthread: My people's truth is not your people's truth. So why do people who do not believe in it anyway care "is the Bible true"? It's obviously not true for them.

For Christians the Hebrew Bible and the New testament are the Bible, so I can see what many want to understand both of them.

I am an Atheist, so it is all just literature and myth to me.

To bring this back to the OP though, I think the question was more about historical accuracy of the texts. There are many parts that are based in history by context or by geographical locations but much of it is allegorical and is not meant to be taken literally but figuratively which is where Faith then steps in.

[imagine21]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

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. .

:

[Kidzaplenty]

[umsami]

Not sure if anybody mentioned it, but a long time ago (maybe 15-20 years ago), A&E has a series called "Mysteries of the Bible." Basically, they would take the Bible texts... and then go back and compare what archaeologists had found adn what not. I have an old VHS version (but no VCR..)...but I bet it might be available in some libraries or on Netflix or something.

OK...just checked...it is on Netflix.

http://www.netflix.com/Search?v1=mys...kce=acsNoEnhRt



I never was able to get into "A Case for Christ", but C.S. Lewis is always always a good read, IMHO. I loved "Mere Christianity", "Screwtape Letters", "Surprised by Joy", etc.

[christianmomof3]

That reminds me there is also a video online that is about the Bible vs the Book of Mormon that looks into the archaeology behind both books - basically they find a lot of archaeological evidence of things referred to in the Bible but not from the BOM. I found it interesting to see the evidence of all of the Biblical things they presented. (No offense intended towards the LDS on my part - I just enjoyed the part about the Bible on that video.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08

[umsami]

From reading up thread, I will say that from what I remember, most focused on the OT stories... but there were a few NT stories. As for Jesus himself, the reference that is usually given is Josephus... and I don't seem to remember any other ones. One passage is viewed as questionable, while one is viewed as most likely accurate. I'm sure if you Google/Wiki it, it will come up, I would just say that his influence was very very small during his life, and it is after... mainly through the work of Paul and other disciples (such as Peter and James)... that his teachings and even existance became known.

I'd also point out that when one studies the Bible, there are different types of literature used throughout. It's not all meant to be taken literally, even though it is by some. Just as if I say "it's raining cats and dogs"... I don't mean that there are schnauzers and tabbies coming down. One example that comes to mind is the use of "40" in the Bible... it rained 40 days and nights.... Jesus went out into the desert for 40 days... etc. It's really popular. It's also popular in other Middle Eastern literature, such as "Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves." It's in the ahadith (Muslim traditions) as your neighbor is anybody 40 houses on either side of you. In the Bethel Bible Study Course I took, as well as the course on the Pentatuch I took in Seminary (Reformed--Presbyterian Seminary, if it matters), both mentioned that "40" often meant simply "a lot"... a really big number. Of course, you're free to believe it as a literal 40 if you choose.

Reminds me, with Christmas upon us, I read on interesting article on the birth of Jesus...and was Mary really alone. Basically talks about ME hospitality... and the fact that Mary and Joseph were both of the House of David...staying in the City of David... it would have been an honor to help them, etc. http://www.truthortradition.com/modu...ticle&sid=1126 A similar article appears in this magazine http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/pr...ec09Manger.pdf

[LilMamiBella]

Great we have netflix and i can watch this on tv

[merpk]

Originally Posted by umsami

One example that comes to mind is the use of "40" in the Bible... it rained 40 days and nights.... Jesus went out into the desert for 40 days... etc. It's really popular. It's also popular in other Middle Eastern literature, such as "Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves." It's in the ahadith (Muslim traditions) as your neighbor is anybody 40 houses on either side of you. In the Bethel Bible Study Course I took, as well as the course on the Pentatuch I took in Seminary (Reformed--Presbyterian Seminary, if it matters), both mentioned that "40" often meant simply "a lot"... a really big number. Of course, you're free to believe it as a literal 40 if you choose.

Yeah. And Moshe (Moses) was up on Mt. Sinai for 40 days. (And after he broke the first tablets, he went up for another 40 days to get the second ones.) And the Children of Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years till they reached the Jordan River.

[NishaG]

Originally Posted by LilMamiBella

I'm sorry Merpk I was talking about the Christian bible. What I didn't understand was why Christians like to refer to Leviticus 18:22 that is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." But other parts of Leviticus they do not do, yk? My mom who has gotten very religious talks to me about how being a lgbt is a sin but yet she isn't worried about how she cuts her hair or that she likes to eat shrimp and wearing polyester. The bible says that those are abominations as well.

As far as being lgbt being a sin and using Leviticus, some like to use it because it was one of the original scriptures about homosexuality. However, since Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law, there is no need to continue to follow all the laws within it. BTAIM, when there are certain laws that God felt that Christians needed to follow, as well, they were reiterated in the NT. That is why there are scriptures in the NT that coincide with Leviticus 18:22 and others.

[genifer]

Also, I was thinking about this and what lilmamibella said (I think it was you) about glbt stuff... Jesus did talk about it. Ive heard some people use the assumption that Jesus didnt talk about homosexuality, and they follow Jesus not Paul and what he said (bc paul was a 'bigot', 'woman hater' etc), Ive heard some christians use this argument, but Jesus did talk about marriage. It was a subject he was passionate about I think, bc he mentioned it specifically and on a number of occassions. He said 'In the beginning, God created them male and female and a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife'. Now some will say 'Jesus was only talking about divorce, you gotta keep it in context.' I think Jesus was being specific about marriage being between a male and female.

And the bible doesnt say its an abomination for a woman to cut her hair, it says not to be contentious about it, but it does say that shaving her head is considered wrong, it goes against what God considers beautiful for a woman, but not to be contentious about those insignifigant things. The word 'abomination' is used to describe things that are very specifically wrong in God's eyes. And yes it is wrong for a christian to go around with a judgemental heart. Its very wrong and we will be judged by God accordingly for not recognising it and repenting thereof.

[umsami]

I'm wondering how whether or not the Bible can be proved to be true has to do with verses on marriage or being LGBT? Are there some threads crossed? Or did I miss a bit when people were wondering if Sodom and Gomorrah really existed and were destroyed? I actually believe the A&E series did a show on S&G.

On an aside... my reading of those chapters implies that Lot offering up his virgin daughters to be raped as well as the men of the city wanting to rape the angels were definitely part of the sins... and I'd say much more so than homosexual sex. Which do you find more disturbing? Consensual sex, whatever the preference, or forced rape? I always find it interesting that it is rarely mentioned--yet to me is the abomination.

Here's an article from "The Jewish Encyclopedia" on S&G: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...S&search=sodom

In Ezekial 16, in talking about Sodom and Gomorrah, "She (Sodom) and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." Sounds like a lot of people/cities/countries today could be construed to be arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned.... not helping of the poor and needy... and it would have very little, if not zero, to do with the sexual preferences of its inhabitants.

:

[genifer]

Forget I said that, I would delete it but you're post might not make sense umsami so Ill leave it. Its like when a thread goes off topic its bc one's reading individual posts and responding to one thing in a post. It has nothing to do with the original topic, so my bad...