If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?

quote:

---

The Bible is the religion that always stands tall above the rest.

---

The Bible is a religion?You worship the bible?That explains a lot.

Hi Custard, Yes they can be argued over, and I have participated in many such discussions, however, arguing is all you can do with these concepts, they cannot be verified or falsified in the same way that an alleged historical event can.People will be arguing over philosophical and moral points of the Bible for ever more, but many alleged historical events in the Bible have already been proven incorrect, and futhermore, the majority of Christian scholars have accepted this.So what I mean by 'we can only really argue' is that, if we want to arrive at a conclusion we need to discuss something that can be verified or falsified, anything else is meaningless. For example, to say that God created the universe, or that there is a heaven and hell are meaningless statements.Brian.

Er, get a clue .. that's because science isn't a religion, precisely because it doesn't operate the way religions do.

First you asked What actually is the insirational story? It is of a God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to suffer death on the cross so that all people might have everlasting life.Then you asked I don't know. If you are asking about those who take the Bible literally, then my only possible answer is that they may be reading the book but seem to be totally missing the message. As I said earlier, if someone could prove that the Bible was 100% fireside story and parable, it still would not change the message.Finally you asked about other religions. Today, there are four GREAT religions in the world. There are many more than four total, but the majority of religious people fall into one of the big four, Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim.Let's look at those four.There is the GOD of the Jews. That GOD later sent his son Jesus to get the message of salvation to a portion of the peoples that were outside the Jewish Faith. Still later, that very same GOD sent a messenger to Muhammad in an attempt to reach those that were not reached throuogh Christ's life and death.So the three religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism all worship the same GOD, the GOD of Abraham and Isaac.Turning to the Hindu culture. It is an old, old religion, most likely predating even the Jews. And the basic belief is that their is one GOD. Only one GOD, that can be seen through various aspect. It is like the Christian Church views God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, three attributes, one GOD. Interestingly, the Hindus accept the GOD of Abraham as the GOD as well as Jesus and the Holy Ghost. All, along with Vishnu and Brahma are attributes, aspects of the one GOD.So it looks like almost all of the religious prople in the world today actuall worship the same GOD. All paths do lead to enlightenment, as the Buddha would say.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How logical is this? Have you ever told a lie? I have to assume the answer is yes, therefore no one can ever trust anything that you say. I think jar explained the bible to best, in that it is a map. If you base your faith on a BOOK, then the book is your God. Precisely.

Only if you first discount the GOD of Abraham and Isaac. You are right that Islam came after Christianity, but it is an offshoot of the Jewish faith just as Christianity is, and their book, the Koran was, like the Bible, given by the very same GOD. They worship the very same GOD as Christians.Then you go on Science is not a religion despite the lies people may tell you so your statement is silly and only hurts any possible credibility you might have.Further you ask which shows you haven't even bothered to study what you are criticizing. Actually, the whole book of Genesis is recognized in ISLAM including the story of the Garden of Eden. One big difference though in the ISLAMIC version is that they don't have the weak woman falling under the spell of the serpent and then taking advantage of the gullible male. In the Islamic version, the man and the woman stand as equal partners, both are tempted together and fail together.From the Koran Finally you asked and the answer is that Muhammad was taken to heaven by the Angel Gabriel.edited to correct the miststaement about Muhammad's death. He did die and I was confusing the earlier tale of his rise to heaven with his death.I appologize and I need to review MY material better.This message has been edited by jar, 05-28-2004 03:30 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have to object here, jar. I respect the ecumenical impulse, but in the context of a debate this does some violence to the concepts. It's been said that one can be a good Buddhist and be a Christian, but one cannot be a good Christian and be a Buddhist, which sums it up in a nutshell.Hindu cosmology is expressly metaphorical. So that when we say, "Brahman=GOD" we commit the error of defining Brahman, even though we intend to define it as Infinite. To the Semitic religions, God exits. To a Hindu that's a meaningless question; the world is maya, that's what we are able to see. The Buddhist expressly rejects the notion of a Supreme Being. It's probably more accurate to call this a denial of Brahman.Now, I'm neither a Hindu nor a Buddhist, and the above undoubtedly does some violence to both as well. But I think it's important to at least take a stab at the distinction. Hindu and Buddhist commentators may indeed see in the Semitic God a spiritual sense akin to their own. Western mystics may see as much in the East. But the Semitic idea of a God who can be known, a God who demands, or is, worshipped, who explains how one should live, that God is not to be found.

jar (& Brian msg 27),Where did you hear that Muhammed never died but was lifted to heaven (or rose from the dead)?I always had him down as dead and buried - he even has a tomb in Medina. sourcePEedited to add: the mistake almeyda is making (IMO) is when he compares the Christian veneration of Jesus, with the Muslim veneration of Muhammed. A much better analogy, is between Jesus and the Quran (both being "pieces" of God on this Earth. And, obviously the Qur'an is still very much extant.Unlike Jesus.This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 05-28-2004 12:42 PM

---

404 Not Found

You are correct. I was mistaken and confusing his death with the horse imprint encounter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Although it has been many, many decades since I really studied the Hindu religion in any depth, I think their concept of GOD is not that far from the Semitic vision. GOD is undefineable in both. Just look at the problems that even a gathering or Christians has in defining GOD. There are probably at least N+1 definitions of GOD in a body of N Christians.The biggest point that I was trying to make is the Hindu practice of assigning attributes to names. For example, Brahmin is the Creator or the Creative Force. I hope that at least explains my thinking.Buddhism though is entirely different, and is not as much a religion as a philosopy. That is the big reason that I did not include either the Buddhists or the animists in my litany of religions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Brian's reply to Almeyda (?): Actually he didn't. His resurrection has yet to occur.

quote:

---

it is written that when Mohammed, (who flew a magical Winged-Horse in a dream in the year 621 of this era), will come again, that Allah will revive the Winged-Horse and that this Flying Horse, along with 4 or 5 Archangels, will be charged of finding him on Earth which will be like a Waste-Land and they will not know where he will be
- an overview of Muhammad's life from Qu'ran and Hadiths

---

I have yet to find any good sources for the Qu'ran and Hadiths on line, but the info from the source above does jive with my recollections of what I learned in those Middle Eastern Studies B.A. course requirements I took a million years ago. Sorry, just saw the other replies. But I left this in as it does describe the manner in which M. will be resurrected. The winged horse is, apparently, the same flying horse he rode upon during his 'Miraj' dream encounter to which Jar refers.This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 04:53 PM

Many thanks Custard and others for correcting me here, I was obviously confused with the 'Night Journey' and 'Ascension' stories.It would have been very cool if Almeyda had corrected me Thanks again, I appreciate your clarification.Brian.

and I must admit, I certainly have been one of those guilty of wandering, IMHO, it is unimportant whether any of the Bible is literally true or not.I happen to be an Escher fan. One of my favorite prints is of a muddy road and was called Puddle. It doesn't matter if it is a drawing of something real, or if it is simply Escher playing with repetitions or math, it is still a drawing that I can explore for hours, constantly finding new items, things I had not notice before, new and wonderous relationships.For me, as with the Escher print, the question comes down to what is the purpose of the Bible.Is the Bible meant to be a science text? Is it a history? Is it simply entertainment?I believe that the Bible is meant as a guide to man's relationship with man, the world he lives in and the belief (and that is all that it is) of a life everlasting.One layer below that is the Bible as a historical document. At that level, older oral histories have been gathered and placed in writing. Much of the written history will point back in time hundreds of years before the author, and there, it will suffer from the same problems found in all other historical documents. Namely, it will be written from a given point of view. A history of the American Civil War (which was hardly civil) written by a Confederate supporter will vary greatly from one written by a Union supporter. We can expect that certain major points will be common to both, for example the dates and locations of battles or the order of march for various regiments, but the details will vary depending on the authors point of view and access to information.A third, still lower level will be the Bible as science. There I expect the least accuracy and the greatest variability. The tales of creation are a good example. The authors of those sections simply did not have the observations that have been made in the 6000 years or so since then, access to the tools that have given us views unimaginable to them, the additional knowledge in mathmatics and the relationships of the objects they saw with the unaided eye. They developed theories of creation and relationships of living things that worked well until additional capabilities and observations showed they were incorrect.So to answer the question first asked in the title of the thread. I believe that you can trust those parts of the Bible that pertain to the highest and primary level. The lessons about how to live your live, how to exist in the world, and the belief in an afterlife are, IMHO things that can be trusted.When it comes to the historical portions, some may well be accurate but they will, like all historical texts, be slanted to a particular point of view, and those parts that deal with a time far before the author, those that were copied from older oral traditions, will likely be the least reliable.And finally, as a Science text it is only of interest in the same sense that it is valuable to understand the Ptolemaic Theory of the Universe or the Theory of Humors and Desease as a method of understanding the thoughts and actions of the people at that time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What parts of the Bible are reliable or literally true and what parts are untrue or unreliable? Does it matter?Are we allowed to decide for ourselves over a period of time what parts of common folklore are true or reliable with regard to inherent truths and which parts of common folklore are bunk and without merit?I certainly hope that reasonable people eventually come to reasonable answers to such a reasonable question.Example: If someone gave you a bushel basket full of 100-dollar bills, and you discovered four or five counterfeit bills in the first say two hundred that you counted out, would you then dispose of the whole lot?Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 05-28-2004 05:37 PM

IMHO, it does not matter which parts, if any, are literally true.There are many parts that we can say a simply NOT true. For example, the Flood story, the ARK, the Creation story are simply not true.Other parts, for example Exodus, are very likely not true.But that doesn't matter. Even if they have no more substance than the Iliad, the lessons that they teach are of value.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion