Bible Study  

*snorts*


Riiiight. Hell I am very educated in the bible and have read it a few times, and studied it, from Genesis to revelations and it nothing but myth and fables. No it is not backed up by history or historical fact at all.

You have yet more to study as I can see because there has been plenty of evidence to back the Bible up. You have stopped short of fully educating yourself.

I agree darkjedi. I have studied many faiths for over 40 years and came to my truth very early.

It is the bible that has claims that are largely unsubstanciated and in fact in many cases can easily be refuted or only explained in terms of myth and fable, other than the known to all parables. There are very few historical facts. Even the Exodus could not occurred as described due to the political forces of the time (roman rule). The leaders must know this or else they are very uneducated themselves. I understand The Vatican has recently at last agreed that The Garden Of Eden is a myth.

The best fictional writings have a basis in reality (and non-fiction). Most Christians would say that Islam is the "wrong religion", yet Muslims claim Mohammed is real and did everything the Koran claims he has done. Everyone claims their is evidence, yet where is it? Within the confines of the bible? Thats not evidence. A few papers that have shown up over the years? I have seen quotes, but never once have I seen actual writings (beyond the bible) regarding these characters in the bible. Even if there are writings, they are still questionable as a majority of those searching for evidence to back up the bible are, in fact, religious themselves. For all I know every drop of evidence found to support the bible could be false and created by men themselves, as I suppose the bible has been in the first place.

I think claiming that a book and a non-evidence evidence related faith is a pure truth is a good sign of insanity.

If the bible was meant to teach us anything, by the way; it should make better distinction between a lot of different "rights" and "wrongs." These days one can't even really tell what the bible says about homosexuality, marriage (apparently), abortion, and such.

WTF? Exodus could not have happened because of Roman rule? ....I'm sorry, what?

Look, if you are going to try to make an argument, can you please give me facts? Because it's hard to argue with someone whose entire argument consists of appeals to ridicule (which is a logical fallacy by the way, and also quite stupid).

Ulalume - if you are willing to search for it, there are several sources out there that will tell you which parts of the Bible have been backed up by history, archaeology, and other sciences. I suggest reading The Case for Christ if you are at all interested. Also, why does a person's religious affiliation matter when they are trying to prove the Bible? Would you say that a scientist who believes in gravity would not be trusted if he did experiments to prove it existed? Facts do not have bias. If there are historical documents that back up the Bible, the bias of the person who found them does not matter.

katran the problem is not whether the Exodus story could or could not have happened, it is that there is not a shred of evidence that it did happen.

The problem with existing historical evidence to support the Bible is that it all falls into the category of, "I found evidence of this place name mentioned in the Bible so the whole Bible must be true." Using that kind of evidence I can prove that Harry Potter is true because London is mentioned in the books.

katran - As the romans were ruling at the said time of the said Exodus, it would have been impossible for a large party of people to freely cross the land on this exodus. Do you suppose the roman soldiers would have let even a few pass?
Totally illogical.

Islander, the Romans were not ruling at the time of the Exodus. The Exodus happened sometime in the 15th century BC, or at the latest in the mid to early 1200s BC. Rome was not even FOUNDED until the 700s BC. Good to know you know what you are talking about.

The exact date of any exodus is actually unknown, or even if it actually even occurred, but i would simply say that if it was before the romans the same would apply to whatever rulers.

That is fair enough, but i do think the verses should be largely be understood as being just stories written at a time when little was really known of the world.

No. I cannot believe that they are really so ignorant. After all you did mention the word brainwashing!

I think you both are the first people ever to equate studying with brainwashing. Since when does education lead to indoctrination? I thought the delving deeper into subject matter was supposed to clear up the misconceptions that arise from simply being told what to believe?

Such doubtful studying is clearly brainwashing.

That is good if a non-believer is involved. I hope they are listened to objectively and not just told to listen. Spirituality is the real truth and it encompasses both the positive and negative aspects that your faith personalises.
This spirituality is at the heart of all faiths and all things.

I agree.

I note your words but it does change my comments already made. I have no doubt whatsoever in what i believe, which after 40 years has not changed at all from when i began. This prooves the strenth of it. I suppose i am incredulous at what people can believe and question why they do so.

Well as the cliche goes, no one's perfect! But at least we can try. However, I think we would still fail.

Good point.

But a believer that is a hypocrite really isn't a true believer?

I think it is logical to approach any ancient religious writings with a sceptical eye, bearing in mind how much more advanced we are in archaeology and science as well as the other sciences.

The proof that its not real is in the proof that no-one has prooved it is (after thousands of years). This is one of the oldest religious debates that has pissed me off. "I can't back up my belief, how about you back up yours and show me that yours is real?!?" Its stupid. I claim to believe in nothing (essentially, except myself). Backing up my belief is pointless, as I already believe in nothing because of the proof religious people provide: non-proof.

I think its safe to say that I can proove that I believe in nothing (or myself, whichever you prefer); however no one can proove (objectively) that their religion is correct in any way.

How can scientists prove something that happened back in 1400 b.c.?

What could they find to prove it?

Exactly

Plenty has been discovered about the world by archaeologists from much longer ago than that.

I agree. When any writing can be read in different ways it only can lead to trouble. It would certainly be better if different faiths were more readily encouraged to study their different faiths together.

You are of course right.