The Case for the Bible, Part 1

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

A “friend” handed me a “Awake!” magazine…I know, but that is not the point. The theme of the mag was pretty standard. It asked: “Can you trust the Bible?” I know…one can already foretell the affirmation to the question. The cite 5 reasons why you can trust the Bible.

1- Historical soundness. It list many historical persons, events and even titles. But this reason is discarded by me because the question is not about historical but meta-historical person(s), events and title(s). I can trust that the people of Israel conquered the land of Canaan. Such events occur all the time. But can I trust that this was done through divine power?
People, I mean believers, tend to go beyond the matter of fact in events to the meaning, that they interpret, must lie behind the event. The Bible is not read primarly for it’s historical accounts but the meta-historical accounts that render historical ones meaningful. So it is not that I have to trust the Bible that there was a Pilate, but that there is only one God and that this God is loving and maleable.

2- Candor and Honesty. The authors present the blemished church and church fathers. I discard this answer also because the writtings of Paul were not meant to be compiled in a Bible. They were letters and very personal. All the unflattering truths, also, have a way of aligning with the israelite/jewish outlook. It is not the first-born who inherits the throne but the discarded brother. The logic behind it is that God took what no one would want to best present His power; so that the beneficiary would have no claims to greatness in himself: The discarded rock becomes the key-stone, not due to the rock itself but because of the mason that shaped it and placed it in such position of power. The accept all short comings and errors but not in that which matters most: Their Salvation. They readily admit that they are simple and uneducated but disdain this world in which these attributes serve one well and opt for a Heaven that depends neither on man’s wisdom, or reason but in God’s Grace.

3- Internal Harmony: …This barely deserves mention. If nothing had been written about Jesus but what became the Canon then we could agree about the Bible’s inherent harmony. But the truth is that other books were written that were later suppressed, and the others left were added, or allowed because of their apparent harmony. So the internal “harmony” (for it is in the eye of the beholder) is an artificial quality created by the selection process and not by the nature of the Revelation (Apocalypse in fact was left out in some lists due to it’s disharmony with what was at that time accepted as sacred).

4- Scientific accuracy: This is discarded for the same reasons I discard “Historical soundness”. Herodutos was correct about many things but not about all things. Making a lucky guess on a Solar eclipse, for example, does not qualify you to claim to know, say… whether there is one God or multiple gods. You would not know that unless you are god.

5- Fulfilled prophecy: Again, lucky guesses do not entitle a document with reliability on all things. In the most important aspects the Bible is insistent to remain undeclared, such as the specific time of His return. Some would say that Nietzsche was a prophet (Kaufmann), and that his prophecies were fulfilled. Does that mean that I can trust his claim that “God is Dead!”?

So, can anyone trust the Bible? Yeah, sure, just as others “trust” the Koran. But that trust is based on faith. You cannot put up a list of the “reasons” why you trust that scripture instead of another. Now it is hard to renounce our finest quality: reason and that is why people love to complete arranged marriages between their reason and their faith. They want to say not only that they “believe” but that they have reasons to believe in this or that. But deep into any examination of the justifications for a belief of this sort it is revealed that none of the five reasons, for an example, given above “touches” the issue at hand. I’ll explain later, so that I do not burden the reader.

2

these are good Posts, Im suprised noone has replied to them.

3

That’s why… :laughing:

4

Faith is belief without evidence. It is foolish and very wrong that modern society honors this word or honors people who claim to be acting in faith. The 9/11 hijackers made a true faith statement. Wasn’t it noble of them… :confused:

5

It is just collective ignorance … very common I’m afraid.

Hi Omar,

I agree with you fully if those people are claiming that the historicity of the Bible is based on our modern standards for history, but of course the Bible was written at a time when there were other standards. At that time there was a need to show that Israel’s calling or the Crucifixion of Christ were historical occasions, even if the description of what happened was very allegorical. If it were only a story, it wouldn’t be so valuable, but it is more than just a story – even a timeless story – it is a historical fact. The question is of course, what the “fact” is.

The history of Israel is also more than merely the story of a conquest. It is very allegorical and also critical of Israel (being representative of any pious group), describing the rise and fall of a people called to be different and to make a difference. The timeless stories apply just as much today to Jews and Christians, showing the pitfalls of superficial piety and the hypocrisy of a nation that was supposedly following divine instructions, that adapted to the same standards as the people around them. The examples for that were and are historical.

The candour and honesty of the scriptural record, especially the (real) letters of Paul, which are probably more historically reliable than Acts, has nothing to do with the lacking intention of the author to write scripture. The “unflattering truths” as you call them, were more the expression of a paradox, a measure that was and is opposed to human standards. Human beings judge and it often turns out to be wrong – as with the capstone example or with the juvenile red-headed herdsman who became the greatest King of Israel in the place of the impressive elder brothers.

Continually the Bible lets us see that it is the aware or sentient people who are chosen, beyond the praise and ideas of majesty that we all possess. Wisdom is chosen before cleverness; the poor in spirit before the educated; the mourners rather than the rejoicing; the meek rather than the assertive; those who hunger and thirst after righteousness rather than those who are self-righteous; the merciful rather than the resolute; the pure in heart rather than the determined; the peacemakers rather than the warriors; those who have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake rather than the powerful.

I think that the harmony is at a different level. It isn’t on the surface, I agree, but if you approach the Bible humbly aware, it springs into life. This happens whether we are worthy or not – probably because we need to be shocked at ourselves. We need to be shocked into understanding that our motives do not commend us, our actions do not commend us, but throughout the Bible you can read that a soul, duly shocked, can gain deeper awareness. He can be saved from delusion and put on the path of salvation.

Because the Bible is pre-scientific I would share your scepticism. However, the prophets were aware and able to see that things were going to happen long before the common people. The insight into the nature of the cosmos is also something that Buddha taught.

I agree with Nietzsche, the God he is talking about is dead. I think that believers should ask themselves what consequences it could have, to have a God who is called “I am”, and whose name should not be taken in vain.

I can trust the Bible, but then again, perhaps I have an access that other people do not have. Anthony de Mello once said that you have to be awake to understand what the Bible is saying – and many people like to doze through life, clinging to illusions and desires, and to life itself, not noticing that their clinging is throttling the life out of them.

Shalom

6

Judging by your simplistic indifference, yes it is. And it is very commenplace.

Shalom

7

When do you not act on faith? Do you attempt to prove that you are loved? Do you check the qualifications of the pilot or check the plane yourself before you fly somewhere? Do you start the day without trusting that things will roughly go the way you hope them to go? Just how often do you get evidence before you do something?

Faith is so commonplace that in is laughable to say that it is foolish. It is like saying breathing is foolish because there are so many germs in the air. Just because there are examples of misguided faith doesn’t mean that faith, per se, is wrong. The more black and white you say life to be, the more ignorance is expressed.

Shalom

8

Dear Tortoise,

get a life and then come back …

Shalom

9

My answers to the subject are given at length in the Post to Omar and those I gave you were at least not as brief as yours. Perhaps you should hold a mirror up for yourself and ask who you are describing.

I told you what constituted the ignorance I perceived and I will tell you as well that I find the arrogance of some of the criticism towards religion here at ILP simply distasteful. You younger people seem to think that wisdom comes out of books and through education, you fail to see yourself privileged, you show no thankfulness and humility, you stigmatise believers - signs by which pre-Nazi Germany could have seen an oncoming threat.

Every threat that the religious sense is being directed against them only causes them to consolidate and it is a sure breeding ground for fundamentalism. I have my own criticism of some of the things I read, as you can see in my answer to Omar, but yours and Bane’s jovial affronts show that you yourself are lacking those attributes that help build a cultured society.

Shalom

10

Actualy…Bob is Islamic If I remember Correctly. (Correct me if Im wrong Bob.)

Which means that every scrap of information he believes in is Logicaly defendable.

If he is Posting he has indeed thought about it and is indeed Not full of shit, but rather Logicaly aware and able to back up his argument or debate.

Honestly its why I prefer Debateing Christians. :stuck_out_tongue: Although I think me and Bob have indeed had a couple of debates in the past under my “Watcher” name.

Each of which turned out to be benificial to both of us.

11

What about Bob?

12

Hi “Watcher”

if this is true:

then why this:

I am Christian, perhaps not the type that you are accustomed to, but all the same. My position is that all religions are varying cultural answers to the same subject. That is why I have had “beneficial” conversations with many people who come from a completely different perspective.

I am also an old fashioned Englishman who has problems with what my son calls pizza-munching, spotty-faced academics, who sit in the dark and believe that they have real life before them on their monitor. I am as tolerant as any other, but we need some cultivation if we mean to survive. The momentary hounding of believers reminds me of the rising anti-semitism in Europe before WWII, which doesn’t belong to the best of human experience.

Shalom

13

Well, I don’t necessarily ascribe to the Jehovas Witness tenets. If I’m not mistaken, they don’t believe Christ is our Savior. The assertions the ‘Awake’ magazine looks like a laundry list of Apologetics. I don’t ascribe to that either. It’s fine if others want sidle to that line of thinking.

In regard to the first books of the Bible, those were set into Moses mind by God. Being that Moses (like the rest of us) has a finite mind, he transcribed them as well as he understood. Somewhat like showing a Victorian age man the inside of a computer today and asking him to describe it. Not unlike John describing his visions and they being transcribed into the Book of Revelations.

You simply can not just read the Bible and expect mystical things to happen. I’ll leave metphors alone here. They almost get ambiguous. Let’s go this direction. If you don’t play the lottery, you won’t win…unless a sernedipitous wind blows one into your hand. If you find a treasure map and don’t seek it’s whereabouts, it’s unlikely you will dig it up. It takes effort, the faith that the action you are going to take will pay off and to be resolute of the outcome.

Making this evident to non-believers most certainly will not happen in venues like these. Anonymity along with a non face to face meetings without honest intent stop this from happening. Thus, we glean what we can from writings and obsevances. The emoticons are poor substitutes for facial inflections. I think mind changing occurences happen either through epiphanys or times of disappointing despair. Making a person become an atheist or someone to believe in a deity. It works both ways. I believe someone can be intellectual and theist at the same time. A lot of doctors are, psychologists, scientists, uni professors etc. Some intellectuals concord choosing a religious path is folly. Others who allow themselves to exceed reason and logic finds their lives more fulfilling.

It seems that these discussions get tediously circular. One side defending their stance in hopes the others see their points of view. I’ve seen long winded posts (not unlike this one) and more terse ones. It’s hard to tell which is the most exacerbating. I’m sure I am guilty of such in other’s eyes. Yet the debates go on. I’ve wondered how many like posts in ILP have been done. History repeating itself over and over. Nothing like philosophy is there?

14

Bob,
Before your dialog descended into shit, you guys had a somewhat interesting conversation going at this point above.

I would ask that you define the terms faith as opposed to belief in something. I agree with dictionary.com’s second definition of faith:

faith /feɪθ/ –noun
2. belief that is not based on proof

Essentially this is the context in which the religious use the word faith.
Faith is belief without proof. In essence, the moment a belief jumps beyond evidence, we have faith. Before then, when there is evidence, it is not faith but belief based on evidence. Big difference. Faith is also very different than assumptions (like trusting that the pilot is competent, as you noted) We assume, based on evidence that the pilot flying our plane, and the plane itself will get us to our destination. It is based on evidence.

A royal roast! =D>

15

ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/ [ig-ner-uhnt]
–adjective

  1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
  2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
  3. uninformed; unaware.
  4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Wow… :astonished:

16

Faith is required for any sort of knowledge, just as religious poeple have faith in god scientific people must have faith in their senses.

I think that all Bane is saying to Bob is that his faith is bad because it is not backed up by empirical evidence. But Bane you are also exercising faith (under that defintion) by believing in what you see. You can have no proof that what you see is any more real than god. It requires faith to believe that your senses are true.

I have never had any religous faith, but I do exercise faith in my senses and faith in the logical nature of my mind and the universe. To me this makes more sense than believing in a god and heaven, which seem like fantasy to me. However, I would never knock anybody’s religious faith, for their faith is as valid as mine. The only problem I have is when people try to back up their faith with logic and rational evidence, as in the Awake! article. It always results in a bad argument.

17

Hi Liteninbolt,

You know how you sound here, don’t you? However, the gist of what you are saying gives room for hope. Many people seem to think of divine inspiration like a dictating machine, whereas in reality it is like germination. When a seed is sown, what grows and comes out of the ground, or what grows in the womb doesn’t immediately look like the end result – in fact, it may look like many other things for some time. If we know that the Hebrew word for “Word” also means light, sound, reputation, name and atmosphere then the connotations that flow with the idea of God’s word or inspiration support that thought.

The Bible is a growing anthology of religious thought, germinated in various places, growing in the minds and hearts of the faithful. We say its beginning lies in the beginning of time, when life came to be, poetically with the command, “let there be light!” Whether the first five books of the Bible were really from Moses is not relevant, they come from that time and reflect the development from Abraham to Moses. Abraham too is a mythical figure, just as all before him and Isaac and Jacob were, but this too isn’t relevant. If you allow these stories to take you on their spiritual journey, you too will be germinated by the Spirit of “I am”.

Now here you are right to a certain degree. However it does suggest exterior piety rather than interior spirituality, but interior spirituality is the basis for all else. You are right, if you don’t step on the bus after paying your fare, it won’t get you anywhere. If you don’t do what your inspiration suggests, you might as well stay uninspired. If you don’t change after recognising that a certain behaviour was wrong, then you don’t need inspiration.

This is something I wrote about a long time ago. However, I do believe that, if both sides are willing, a good exchange can happen. This has been the case over the years here on ILP. It is where disputation takes place that facial expression is vital if it isn’t going to get out of hand. Unfortunately the brashness of youth, which I can calm with a glance, becomes blown out of proportion in the anonymity of the Internet. Equally the older and strong-willed participant, who can be won over with a smile, can start to “clean up” the thread.

However, I do not believe that we should make “ a person become an atheist or someone to believe in a deity” as you say, but exchange the viewpoints and experience as best one can and accept the answer of the other – if only it were not merged with intolerance. The intolerance of someone in another country or other town cannot be hooked on to the participants of a discussion as if it were their own – much less if it is a completely different religion. This practise also disturbs a lot of the exchanges here. I, for example, do not fit the commonplace idea of what a Christian is because I have a multicultural background. Continually I am told that I must be a Buddhist or a Moslem, or I am treated as though I were an evangelical Christian or Jew. Whilst I understand this reaction, I find the underlying aggression in some of these reactions disturbing.

Shalom

18

Hi Bane,

I also follow the definition of dictonary.com. “1. confidence or trust in a person or thing.” Your problem with faith is that you want it in your hand as a hard fact that you can put under a microscope, measure by some means, determine it’s age and consistence and where it came from. All I will say to you is that not everything is like that. Confidence and trust is, by your standards, something bad, but you know yourself how much you put confidence or trust in a person or thing without proof.

I found that Carl Sagan’s book “Contact”, which was filmed with Jodie Foster, was an interesting approach to this subject. Ellie Arroway is left with an experience that she knows was real, but with no substantial proof. Much the same are Mystics without a means to prove scientifically that their epiphany was real, but it has a profound effect on them. However, just like Sagan has the telescope park overrun by freaks who have their own vision of extraterrestrial life, none of who really know anything – but they believe a lot, so is the religious sector also overrun by people who probably would like to know, but can only believe without proof.

I was once asked to hold a talk on “terminal care in care homes for the elderly” and during the time when questions were asked, a young man gave everybody the impression that he was a professional up until he asked his question. The question he asked proposed a position that clearly contradicted experience at the bedside of terminal patients or residents and I asked him tentatively what his experience told him. He appeared ruffled and began to gesticulate until someone in his row asked him whether he knew what he was talking about. It turned out that he had read an article about the subject – no more.

Shalom

19

So the value of Pi is 3? You can breed spotted Sheep by dabbing the parents with mud?

And the House of David still rules in Juruselem?

Dave

20

Hi Bob, I don’t know if it was you, or some other that complained to ILP that I was being to aggressive or offensive on the Religious forum. If it was you, sorry to offend and I’ll tone things down. :slight_smile:

On the subject of faith and how you are simply mixing up the definition of faith with ‘belief based on evidence’, here are some excellent quotes:

Nietzsche

  • That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this.

  • Sec. 51 - Often paraphrased as: “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”

  • Sec. 52 - “Faith” means not wanting to know what is true.