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

That and I think the topic thread skirts the False Dilemma fallacy.Most likely it's a combination of truth and fiction; like most books.Just because some things, or even most things, in the bible might be false, it doesn't make all of it garbage. Just like a few established truths in the bible don't make all of it the divine word of god.This message has been edited by custard, 05-27-2004 05:36 PM

Yeah, my gramps was a baptist preacher in a rural area in Oregon and during the summers I would have to go to bible camp. When I was around ten I kept noticing that I could never get an answer to my questions that satisfied me. Everything kept coming back to "that's the miracle."Me: how did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?
Them: that's the miracle.Me: how did sampson kill 1,000 Philistines with a jawbone of an ass
them: he did, the bible says so
me: but that's like 1 Philistine per minute for almost 17 hours?
them: that's the miracle.The two that finally got me were:me: where do dinasaurs come from?
them: satan put those bones there to trick us.me: why can't I read my Dungeons & Dragons stuff?
them: because Sunday is the Lord's day.So I agree with you, the bible is book written by men, and as such, prone to error. You can trust it as much as you could trust any other media with a particular agenda. Some of Leni Reifenstahl's films depicted reality, and some were absolute propaganda.I guess it's like the previous poster said, Christians have to pick and choose; however, I find it inconsistent how they do that.Finally, I think many people just want to trust in something - a parent figure if you will, so they have something to turn to. Various reasons for this: shirking personal responsibility, sense of purpose, vanity, anthropomorphizing what is difficult to understand (nature). I think that's why they gloss over biblical inconsistencies, errors, and doctrine we find abhorrent today (slavery); because the good parts, the parts they trust, make them feel secure and better about themselves.

OK then, if it is so easy, please disprove Ardism. If you need a refresher, here you go:

quote:

---

The supreme deity Eru Ilvatar (The One who is Father of All) created spirits of lesser power than him, yet of independent nature, named the Ainur.

​

The Ainur (from Valarin Ayanz) are the spirits who existed with Ilvatar, and helped him to create the world Arda through the Music of the Ainur. After the creation of Arda, many of the Ainur worked to guide and order its growth. Of these there were fifteen more powerful than the rest. Fourteen became the Valar. The fifteenth, Melkor, became the first Dark Lord. The lesser Ainur that accompanied the Valar into Arda are known as the Maiar. (The Holy Ones).

​

Ilvatar made divine music with them ("Ainulindal")... the Music of the Ainur is the great song at the beginning of Time, out of which the World Arda {EARTH}was created. In it the whole history of Arda was told, but the Ainur which came into it forgot most of it. The dead souls of mortal Men go forth beyond existence to sing along with Eru Ilvatar the second Music of the Ainur;

​

Melkor , who was then one of the Ainur, broke the harmony. Then Ilvatar began the music once more, in which Manw, Melkor's brother has sung the leading part. Yet again, the harmony was broken.

​

Finally, Ilvatar began a third theme which the Ainur could not comprehend since they were not the source of it. Ilvatar then ceased the music, and showed to the Ainur the essence of what their song symbolized, the history of a whole world. This is known as the vision of Ilvatar. The Ainur became fascinated by it, and asked Ilvatar to put it into being.

​

Ilvatar muttered "E", that is, "be!". This order created the universe...
- from the holy scriptures of the Silmarillion

---

Good luck. This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 02:41 AMedited by AdminBrian to fix quote box.This message has been edited by AdminBrian, 05-28-2004 06:40 AM

How do you know he was resurrected, Almeyda? Did you SEE it happen? Where's your EVIDENCE?This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 05:35 AM

What about philosphy and morality? Don't you think those are arguable points as well?

---

8 tablespoons unsalted butter;2 cups milk;1 cup all-purpose flour;1 cup sugar;3 large eggs, separated;Fresh berries, for serving

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

Thanks for bringing this back on topic.I concur wholeheartedly regarding the idea of the bible as

quote:

---

a guide to man's relationship with man {do you mean God?}, the world he lives in and the belief (and that is all that it is) of a life everlasting.

---

This makes it extremely valuable from the perspective of social sciences.As for hard science; I hesitate to say it is worthless, perhaps it has as much value as any relic that purports to demonstrate man's understanding of the natural world at the time it was written. It certainly has no value as a scientific 'lie detector'- validating or invalidating scientific discoveries we have made through scientific method.Historically I think it is as valuable as the Soviet Propaganda films are today. Some things may be historically accurate although slanted for the benefit of dogma, while others are completely erroneous for the same reason.

Jar writes: No, what you meant was perfectly clear. I was trying to convey that I did not find much value in the bible pertaining to hard science. I almost wrote "the bible has no scientific value," but then I hesitated.