Can you trust the Bible? - Below are some links that may at least help you to understand SOME of the reasons I do, if you care.

Did you take a chance at getting a virus the first time you clicked on answermug?
I don't expect most to read all links ever posted on the internet or even all the links I posted under the question but some truly questioning may click on one or two.

On the previous page, someone said to me: 

I am happy and I guess eager to explain my faith and why I believe but I find most people are just not interested in my testimony. If you were buying books 25 years ago that was I think before the internet and now I guess many people no longer even read books and just believe whatever they read on the net.  But for my generation books were and are still important.  Accepting The Bible as the truth is to me part of our calling even if it means working and working on the parts we find more difficult to understand. 

Oh I came on AM because I had friends from the former answerbag on here. 

The translations that I have hard copies of and the parts of those translations that I have read on the internet, read the same. I still think the biblical door to door method is best but I find the internet to be a bit easier and a slim few seem to have enjoyed the exchange but at least I get to say what I think may help sincere people.

I find that different individuals have different interests. Do you have a short explanation that would convince sincere people of your faith in God, Jesus, the Bible or whatever as being justified to where they may be compelled to read more of the Bible?

Doubt I could convince anyone of anything.  Mostly it is private though some people do know I am a Christian.  But most people seem to either think they can handle everything on their own or just give up any hope entirely.  My sin convicted me to the point where I knew I was beyond all human forgiveness so all I could do was turn to the hope of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  But I think finally God calls each one of us so the inspiration is Divine rather than by just human effort though certainly good preachers and teachers can interest people in reading The Bible. 

Definitely not just by human effort, but we do have the privilege of bearing witness. Faith is not a possession of all people (2 Thess 3:2) so we need to try to help them just like we were likely helped.

(1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
(Acts 20:20) while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house.
(Acts 20:26) So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men,
(1 Corinthians 3:5-9) What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow, 7 so that neither is the one who plants anything nor is the one who waters, but God who makes it grow. 8 Now the one who plants and the one who waters are one, but each person will receive his own reward according to his own work. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field under cultivation, God’s building.
Luke 19:40

Interesting post, OG

I have yet to find anyone who, through "good preachers and teachers" or otherwise, can explain to me, in simple terms, how "the hope of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ." works.

But if as you "think finally God calls each one of us so the inspiration is Divine rather than by just human effort" then those who have failed to understand how "the hope of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ." works can take comfort that it is not a shortcoming of their human effort but it is because God has not called them. If God has not called them then He can hardly deny them the salvation.

Not gonna waste a lot of time as if you are sincere this time but just in case, here are a couple of links:
n
Atonement
n
Savior

"Not gonna waste a lot of time " is a good idea

I have yet to find where Jesus taught that God demanded a ransom or that his crucifixion will free people from sin or from the law. He said that his food is to do the will of God and that whoever does the will of God is part of his family. He taught that God is forgiving in both the parable of the prodigal son and in his Lord's prayer - "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"

As I've said before, you don't care what the Bible says. It either wasn't said in exactly the right words for you to accept it or may be a year or two off of when you think it should have been said.

(Matthew 20:28) Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”
(Mark 10:45) For even the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”
(Matthew 26:28) for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.
(Luke 22:19, 20) Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.
(Matthew 5:17, 18) “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place.

As far as being unreliable due to being "translated, re-translated, mis-translated, edited and so on for centuries", there are much older text and fragments found in the last century, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, that corroborate and/or clarify previous test not as ancient. There are also many websites available now to anyone sincere enough to research and/or compare different translations.


Quote: "So: History. Well, archaeologists have found traces of some of what may be lost Biblical locations, and of course a few of the towns it names still exist - but that alone does guarantee accuracy of account. Especially if, where and when the history was written to give an approved version for particular religio-political reasons."

I think the point was that for the book could not be found reliable if it contained historical inaccuracies, not that that alone guaranteed anything. When there have been disputes between what the Bible said compared with what opposers said in that area, when provable, the Bible was proved correct. Lets brush that aside though as that doesn't fit in with your apparent agenda and once again, no one said that that alone guaranteed anything.
"It would be hard to trust a book that is found to contain inaccuracies. Imagine reading a modern history book that dated the second world war to the 1800’s or that called the president of the United States a king. Would such inaccuracies not raise questions in your mind about the overall reliability of the book?
NO ONE has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible. It refers to real people and real events."


Quote: "Science. It is not and never tried to be a science journal! It was written long before anyone understood the natural world they saw around them...."

No one said it was, did they? Did you miss this:
"THE Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say."
As mentioned in out other thread, isn't it interesting that it was written long before anyone understood:
(Ecclesiastes 1:7) All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.
(Psalm 104:6) You covered it with deep waters as with a garment. The waters stood above the mountains.
(Psalm 104:8, 9) —Mountains ascended and valleys descended— To the place you established for them.  9 You set a boundary that they should not pass, That they should never again cover the earth.


Quote: "Candour and Honesty...."

I think you missed the whole point of what was said on that.



Quote: "Internal Harmony. I'm not sure what that means, but as a collection of books by unknown people over a few hundred years it is coherent, because it collates some centuries of just one ancient religion, myth-set and society. So a New Testament author would very likely have taken in what a predecessor had written three or four centuries previously, simply to maintain the unbroken early-Jewish tradition."

It was written over some 16 centuries by some 40 different writers. I personally find it interesting that it condemned what came to be Jewish tradition for most Jews. Many of these writers being centuries apart giving different details of future events is interesting to me.


Quote: "Fulfilled Prophecy. Well, of course it would have those no matter how much coincidence-fitting, desire to believe, and simple vagueness that took, because to do otherwise would have undermined the very traditions and beliefs being continued in a society that placed considerable importance on foretelling that which cannot be foretold - human history in unknown times hence. And if the event can be made to fit some idea from the past - then lo and behold, the seer must have been right!"

Are you serious? Babylon, the events pertaining to the Messiah is vague?, Christians, after Jerusalem being completely surrounded and under siege from all sides having the opportunity to flee to the mountainous region before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple itself, man having the capability to destroy the earth, etc etc. Prophecies pertaining to the Messiah himself are so detailed so as to leave out any of the other claimed Messiahs to any sincere Bible student willing to do a bit of research.

EDIT: This is pretty specific, although this particular Bible verse doesn't mention it specifically, sincere Bible students now know that the disgusting thing mentioned here was the Roman armies who should not have been undermining the Temple wall. Sometimes you have to reason on the scriptures. (2 Tim 3:16; Acts 17:2)
(Mark 13:14) “However, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader use discernment), then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains. 


This post was edited by texasescimo at December 28, 2017 3:46 AM MST

I will clarify  my own position first.

I am from an Anglican background, using the  King James Authorised version as its manual - and when that was made, it was by the foremost scholars of the day but they still could only go on what fragmentary old documents exist.

However, I began to doubt  the very existence of any God first, simply because I could not imagine any such thing existing.

Later, I realised that many religions have been invented by humanity over the millennia - we cannot know what Palaeolithic, and even the much-maligned Neanderthals believed but we can be fairly sure they had some sort of spiritual beliefs. Aboriginal religions existed among the real natives of Autralia, New Zealand, Tasmania and the Americas. Many religions such as the Egyptian, Roman and Greek pantheons, have died out. Some were killed off by arrogant invaders assuming their own religion the only one admissible and permissible.

Some still survive, principally the Abrahamic three based on the Hebrews' beliefs, and the Asian systems.

All had or still have,  three basic purposes.

  1)  Some sort of self-satisfying "explanation" of the natural world and Mankind's place in it, when it was genuinely not possible to understand the natural events and processes the faith's originators and followers saw around their part of the world.

  2) A moral framework for its own society - though shalt not kill / steal/ etc.

  3) The invention of some form of after-life as way to lessen the fear of death and to comfort the bereaved. Graves are really the only way we can see that the prehistoric people I mentioned above, were spiritual in some way.

Against those constructive, positive values, were one very negative aspect that shows in ancient accounts (including the Bible) and haunts mankind today - the assumption by many believers in any one religion, or even sect of the same religion, that their's is uniquely "true". It is "true" only in a spiritual manner, and only to its own believers, but might be acceptable or tolerated by others. 

It is that pan-spirituality set of 3 +ve and one -ve characteristics that  made me see, years ago, there is no such thing as any one "true" faith.

I now accept the likely existence of Jesus, as a gifted Jewish prophet who saw through the cant and hypocrisy of the temple elders of his time. In that regard I sympathise with the Islamic view that ascribing a diving nature to Jesus as a human, undermines the essential ineffability of God - even though I don't actually believe in any god.

I must stress I do not object to people following any religion, as long they are sincere, do not arrogantly assume uniquity of improvable truth; and very importantly, they do not try to bully others into it or reject doubters and apostates, whether at family or state level.

I do not object to anyone striving to learn the great natural sciences pertaining to the Universe and Life  - astronomy, geology, palaeontology - while still believing some deity is driving it all, although that itself raises an uncomfortable question or two. I have friends who are ordained and they accept those sciences without any problems.

The reason I reject Biblical literalism goes further than the argument over myth or not. If we are not religious it is meaningless; but if there is a God that/who formed and ran the processes leading to us all, then it must surely insult that God to refuse to use the intellect which must rate amongst its greatest gift to us, to look beyond an ancient society's beliefs to ask what God actually did, thus:

   "If the Universe is God's creation, how and when did everything happen?"

The first clause answers religion's basic question. The second, which may be asked by Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist... Atheist alike, at is what Science asks.

There is no logical, philosophical or theological reason for Biblical literalism, since saying "it's in the Bible so must be true" goes nowhere and helps no-one, but is a useful escape-route to close debate and avoid uncomfortable questions - though no-one can accuse you of doing that!  Indeed, learning and understanding ever-expanding scientific knowledge shows God's created entirety to be orders of magnitude greater, older and more beautiful than the simple, human suggestion made 3000 years ago in Genesis.


I don't mind individuals choosing voluntarily to reject that which questions the ancient Hebrews. That's only their own loss. I do though, find deeply dangerous the drive by what I call the "Commercial Creationists" to force that into schools, because I suspect a dark motive beyond philosophy. I have read that they have made scientific knowledge and enquiry that questions Genesis, illegal in some US State schools. How such States cope with any parents who teach it at home instead, or any students who choose to learn it for themselves, I don't know. These organisations have tried to enforce it in British schools. They exploit a rather ill-conceived policy that encourages commercially-run schools without sufficiently strong oversight, but they cannot make the Theory of Evolution or the Age of the Cosmos, illegal! Of course you can accept evolution but still think it devised by God - it's the binary rejection of science that I distrust. I think I know their reason but the Commercial Creationists would obviously deny it, probably aggressively, too.


The Bible's writers were not fools. They were not ignorant, by their own society's standards. They were as intelligent as you or me - and when it comes to significant natural events that affected their lives seriously, they recorded them as they saw them, albeit without dates; but were able only to call them Acts of God. No-one knows the origins of the Genesis story, but it shows a level of thought beyond the usual romanticism common to most ancient creation myths. It collapses when it comes to human-kind; but we can respect the imagination of some unknown scribe who genuinely could not conceive of time-spans, distances and physical powers we accept as normal to astronomy and geology.

Nor could they have understood orogeny - but there may be Biblical hints of observing events we now know as tectonic effects, occurring within human history. This is feasible because such events can have marked results in humanly-historical times, even though the underlying process is taking millions of years to run; and parts of the Mediterranean lands are tectonically active. (We know, they didn't, that Africa is rifting apart and the Mediterranean is closing at about 2-3mm/year; but in myriads of geographically very small, random steps. God is patient!)

You questioned why I consider some of the Bible's writings to be vague. You have stated its time span and number of authors over that time. Many of its stories must have been recorded long after the event, or if they were contemporary, we cannot tell how accurate or indeed, biased, they were. History often reflects the society's ideas more than actuality, especially after wars. It was very easy over the centuries to ensure the Messiah story is reasonably consistent by selective editing and collating; it is a human trait to latch onto co-incidences that "prove" a claim. Also, the Hebrews did not have the benefit of anyone from other lands meticulously recording them over the centuries, so there is little or no independent corroboration; only the accounts its authors want us to believe. In fact, not "us", in 21C USA and UK. They could not have imagined lives and beliefs so far ahead; just as (perhaps fortunately) we cannot imagine similarly, in our turn. 

 
In the end, I do not dismiss the Bible entirely. It is the handbook to believing in a particular God developed by a particular, ancient society. mainly, it recounts that society's religious beliefs, its own history and events around it, as it saw them.

What matters is NOT believing the Bible is a reliably accurate historical or scientific account. It is not that. It was written by and for, so reflects, its contemporary audience for its own reasons. 

What matters, if you follow that religion, is looking above and beyond those ancient Hebrews' notions, to believe in God himself. 
 

This post was edited by Durdle at June 10, 2018 7:41 PM MDT

You make a useful list of the 3 basic purposes.

I would add one for motivation---the desire to come to understand our creator (God) that He included in everyone of us.

Brilliant! Magnum Opus?

However, "God is patient!" with an exclamation rather than a question mark still intrigues me a bit, having read way above that you "began to doubt  the very existence of any God" Have you started to doubt the doubt, I wonder.

:-). Thank you for the compliment!

No. I haven't doubted my doubt. I don't believe in any god and have no reason to do so, although I realise many find their own belief in God, comforts them. If I did believe in God, or came to do so, I would still accept science, and would treat the Bible as a guide to a religion and its history rather take it in an absolute fashion.  

I was being ironical and a little light-hearted, but please note what I said about playing "God's Advocate" to try to see the problem from the believer's side.....

Thanks for the response. My thinking is almost identical to that expressed in your posts. The only difference, and we're poles apart on it, is that I have not yet found conclusive evidence to exclude from my world view all possibilities of any god of any sort anywhere. I cannot therefore, in all fairness, justify revoking God's visa to remain with us.

You do know that sitting on the pyramid on the top of a fence post was a form of torture centuries ago that resulted in death.

I assume it was impossible for anyone to be put in that position and not know it.

Which version have you read completely, if you have?
Other than the apocrypha, other spurious books and spurious verses like the Johanneum Comma, they basically say the same thing although some words can be legitimately translated in to English more than one way and some have a forced translation due to biased beliefs of the translators, Hell for example. And course the King imposed certain restrictions on the translators of the KJV like using 'Church' instead of 'Congregation','Bishop' instead of 'Elder' and about another 10 or so rules.

I haven't read all the apocrypha or other spurious writings. I've read tidbits of an online version of the B.O.E. and the parts I read completely contradict the Genesis account. I've also read a tiny portion of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The little that I read totally contradicted the personality and timing of Jesus' miracles as revealed in the Gospels. 

These links may help in regards as to why some books are not considered canonical:

Canon


Apocrypha

You say that you "get a huge pain in the butt over the fact that Catholics call theirs the 'one true religion......WHO THE HELL DIED AND LEFT THEM BOSS!?!?"

Well, you may have heard of the guy who did just that---Jesus Christ (aka--- Yeshua Ben Joseph)

Hello tom. Actually, Jesus condemned many doctrines and actions of the Catholic Church well over a hundred years before it came in to existence. Here is just a couple that come to mind.

Use of religious titles: (Matthew 23:5-12) All the works they do, they do to be seen by men, for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards and lengthen the fringes of their garments. 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Forbidding Priest to marry. Even Peter was married: (1 Timothy 4:1-3) However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.
(Matthew 8:14, 15) And Jesus, on coming into Peter’s house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever. 15 So he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and began ministering to him.
(1 Corinthians 9:5) We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ceʹphas, do we not?

Taking tradition over scripture: (Mark 7:8, 9) You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” 9 Further, he said to them: “You skillfully disregard the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

You have to remember that I believe that the trinity is real.  Christ is both God and man and established a new reality regarding man's relationship to God.  He established a Church, gave the keys to His kingdom to Peter, and promised that the Holy Spirit (the 3rd person of the trinity) would guide it forever.

And here's what I find to be an accurate comment on the bind and loose:

It’s not that the apostles were given the privilege of changing God’s mind, as if whatever they decided on earth would be duplicated in heaven; rather, they were encouraged that, as they moved forward in their apostolic duties, they would be fulfilling God’s plan in heaven. When the apostles “bound” something, or forbade it on earth, they were carrying out the will of God in the matter. When they “loosed” something, or allowed it on earth, they were likewise fulfilling God’s eternal plan.

JW's have not so far been able to accept the existence of the Holy Trinity.  Given that, any number of verses that you may post in an attempt to persuade me of any of your beliefs is a waste of your time.  If you don't understand the nature of God, why should I think you have any knowledge of the rest of God's message in the bible?

A retreat master many years ago suggested that when we think of God we think of Him as being at least as good as the best person we know.

You need to start trying to find people you can see as "best" rather than just "good."  The God I know is much more interesting than the god you think exists.

You're belief has no affect on reality. Starting out with and holding to preconceived ideas in spite of what the Bible says has no affect on what the Bible really says.

True, as you say, my belief has no affect on reality.

On the other hand, since truth is conformity of the mind to that which exists, my belief has the value to me of knowing what the truth is.

The bible is written for all men.

I also have studied it.  Children listen to their father and then only much later understand what and why he said what he did when they get older.

Perhaps you should too should "put away the things of a child" and read the bible with an adult understanding of reality.