Determining a book's truth.

I have read many books and never have I asked in my summing up of a book, "Is this book true?"
How can I possibly know that? If I did ask and did a hell of a lot of research, I probably would never find out the whole truth, because I did not write it. I would have to take the author's word for the meaning and there lies no proof. There is no writing that does not contain a part of the author.
I form an opinion of books relating to how I am affected. I ask questions of myself. Is there information I relate to? Is it well written? What does the author mean? What led the author to that meaning? I may agree with the author or I may not. The book will mean precisely what I think it means, to me. It may mean something completely different to someone else and that is o.k too.Why do you use a completely different criteria when reading the book called the bible?

Why not?I have.

I'm sorry, I thought I already explained why. If it rings true for me or I relate to the information or story, then it is what it means to me personally. The absolute truth of it is only of concern if I am going to follow it to the letter and guard it with my life.
I believe this is how the bible is perceived as an absolute truth, and even if it is, it will be perceived by the perceiver in a way the perceiver can understand.
I see absolutely no point in debating it. It means this to one and that to another. Each one of us individually decides what is true and of course if you have a group supporting the belief then it really must be true, hey?

Dameeva wrote: OK, then what is the default value (that is, the conclusion you keep tentative until you’ve looked into it) for you?In other words, do you presume the book true until proven false, or presumed “of incomplete truth” until proven true? I think it is childish at best to presume a book true until proven false - that would make you a gullible fool, a slave to every idiotic piece of writing.So, then we presume any book - including the Bible - isn’t completely true until proven so, and any research into it shows that there are all kinds of errors of fact and inconsistencies in the Bible (we could go on and on here, but some are things like “when was Jericho conquered, and by whom?”, or “where, when and how did Ahaziah die?”, “how many generations between Jesus and David?”, “what exactly happened Easter morning?”, “how many chariots did King Solomon have?”, “were the Jews ever enslaved in Egypt?”, (not to mention “how old is the Earth”,)and on and on. That’s a good question. Many people seem to molly-coddle the Bible - treating it as a delicate bauble that must be guarded from the normal examination we use on all other books, as if they already knew it were packed with falsehoods and didn’t want it exposed. Many people can rationally examine all kinds of writing, and skeptically reject absurdities in more reliable publications like the tabloids, yet when faced with flying dead people, zombie armies, entire galaxies landing on earth, and talking animals, they accept it as the gospel truth without batting an eye. It boggles the mind that so many people use completely different criteria when reading the Bible so as to unfairly pamper the Bible.Do you, dameeva, apply normal, rational skepticism to the Bible just as you do to other books?Have a fun day --Equinox

I believe the bible and other such books that provide guidance should definately be viewed with skepticism. Most, if not all, of the information offered contains the author's and reader's perceptions. Rarely will two humans have the same view point of the view. The whole truth cannot be contained outside of self.
I feel the book called the bible demonstrates the different perceptions in action. Be very wary, I feel.
As for me reading the bible? Yuk! It's one long horror story that puts the fear of god up me.

Is it possible for a quick summary of the current discussion to be posted? I just registered, and it's kind of a lot to read for a person late at night : ) .As for my thoughts on the overall topic, I think I may be broaching one of the preset rules for the discussion, but I think the Bible has to be an "all or nothing" deal. Because if some is true and some isn't, how do you pick and choose? Who's to say what right and what's not?Personally, I believe in the accuracy of the Bible. I think some support for this can be found in prophecies made that were then fulfilled, in some cases things that seem to be ahead of it's time, and then a lot of little things that verify itself. If desired, I can elaborate in these somewhat vague points.

The same way you would decide what is true or false in any other book: by comparing it with reality. For example, in reality the Flood never happened. So, if you insist on "all or nothing", it must be nothing. Anybody who looks at it honestly.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Maybe you could use some of your 'God-given' intelligence.{ABE} welcome to EvC!{ABE2} Granted that response was a bit curt but it essentially gets to the heart of the problem of interpreting the Bible. If one is to give their very soul over to a given religion above and beyond all other considerations, shouldn't that religion be worthy of deep study and consideration above and beyond just sheepishly accepting what one is being told the given religion is all about? The Bible is a lengthy, complex, and self-contradictory document that speaks to people on many levels. Isn't it a bit lazy to just say it is 'an all or nothing deal' as though any individual is the 'all-knowing' master interpreter of the message?Perhaps if approached with a sense of humility as opposed to self-righteousness, the message contained within the Bible may be more completely apprehended. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

I think this:2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,If all scripture is not given by God, than apparently this statement is false. Who's then to say what else this author may have said that was false, because apparently if that is the case then we cannot always trust his words. (Keep in mind this was Paul, so we are kind of dealing with the primary part of the NT)I disagree however with the statement that the Bible is contradictory. I think statements of contradiction can be accurately explained (at least the ones dealing with accounts that seem to contradict in overall things, not details of numbers, I can't explain all of those yet). As for the flood, as of so far I believe that it happened, but I have not done personal research on it.I think the Bible can explain itself when questioned, I would not think to just take what one is told by someone else. The Bible contains the message I believe we need to hear:Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.If one such person speaks contrarily, it is then my duty to search out its explanation.An example of what I mean about "How can we interpret what we should and shouldn't do" isn't referring to things such as killing and stealing, but matters of greater subtlety such as the balance of faith and works, How to treat others in different situations, And how to overall live in relation to those around us (such as should we be COs etc). If some of the things said in the Bible are false, then we cannot guide ourselves by it.As for the overall post topic, I'd say the way to determine if a book is true or not would be if it supports itself (ways include prophecy, unique things that ordinary people wouldn't throw in, and an overall proof of something more than just man guiding it).As a final statement, I must stand by my previous post after having explained my self further.

Psalm quotemines: Of course, 2 Timothy is not talking about the Bible which simply didn't even exist at the time but rather inspired writing in general. Nor does it mean that any of it is factually true.You can learn much from fairy tales and myths, from epics and sagas, regardless of whether they are fact, fiction or some combination of both. That can only be true if you take the position held by many Christian Theologians that if there is any conceivable way to get around the contradictions, regardless of whether it is true or not or even plausible and reasonable, the contradictions don't exist. That is called willful ignorance. Do minimal research. There is simply massive evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood. That is of course called circular reasoning. The book cannot support itself. It is only when the book is tested against reason and reality that you can determine its worth.As to prophecy, if you believe you can show examples of true prophecy that was fulfilled, please by all means present them for examination and discussion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi, Psalm148,If you click the little green reply button at the bottom of a post, you can reply to a specific post and poster. I'm going to assume that some of this post was directed at me. Stop and think for a minute. When the epistles to Timothy were written, what was "Scripture"? The New Testament didn't exist yet. The answer is still the same: Anybody who reads anything honestly can (and must) decide for himself which parts of it are accurate and which parts are not. We should never, ever, under any circumstances trust anybody's words without checking them against reality. We have a whole forum on the Flood. There's a lot of research done for you there and a lot of links to more research. If some of it is false, why insist that all of it is false? Besides being bad logic, that's a very sad outlook. As with anything in life, take the good and leave the bad.If you can't tell what's good and bad, no book is going to do it for you.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So you are saying the Bible is not self contradictory except in the minor cases of details or numbers where it is self-contradictory. Maybe you should examine and even test your beliefs if you would like to make them stronger, or at least more nuanced and less robotic.That's what one would do if they felt their beliefs were worthy of their study and attention.Edited by anglagard, : spelin

I'm saying I as of so far have not looked into examining as to how such instances can be explained (this in reference to numerical contradictions).I do know, however, of scientists in the scientific community who do believe that there was in fact a world-wide flood, and in fact have published works and/or documentaries on them. I do intend to look into the matter however, so I ask that if possible the flood discussion here be disbanded, as I am in no current state to address this issue.

Honestly, Psalm148, the thread was not proposed accurately, and I don't think attsyf is around to discuss this any longer.If you look at Bible history, first, there is the major factor of 2 Timothy. Scripture, even as defined by the Jews, was not one book, and in many cases, what was considered important info from God was not even written. The Jewish people had a long oral tradition to supplement the books.Shrtly after 2 Timothy was written, the Christain churches had a huge debate about whether or not to even use the ancient scriptures in their catechising. I am thankful that they did, but I can't say at all that they were going to throw out these books because they believed they were false.So you move on to the Council of Trent etc., and many books were thrown out of the new canon. The reasoning behind the choices is not clearly explained in any place that I can find, but I have a hunch that it had little to do with what was 'true' and more to do with what was important and what was known to be from a reliable source. What they were doing at the time was not seperating God breathed from non, because that is impossible. It is possible to find a text which is closest to an original, or comes from an area, or a person, or a time period, which fits into other known 'facts'? I hvae not been able to discover whether the fathers of the councils used a more scientific method, or just guessed. Seems there is little regarding this still preserved.Because the RCC also accepts publically some teachings which come from non canonical books, it is safe to say that those were not necessarily considered false, but were rather simply of obscuer, untrusted, or unknown origins.The best way to approach the discussion is to find out what the criteria was for the people actually making the selections, and to find their reasons for which books were ultimately put in the Bible. All we are doing is trusting their judgement, really, whether that be inspired or not.

Sorry for double/triple posts. Such was done so that I could address each post one at a time. apologies At the time of the writing of 2 Timothy, all of the Old Testament existed. Also, I'm not entirely sure as to the order in which books were written, but one of the first epistles was James, and it seems that other writings reference, or were at least written in a similar format to that of James.Also, think about this: God is perfectly capable of putting together what he wants together. WE are missing books. Read the histories (Joshua-Chronicals) and you will find references to books of Seers that we do not have in the current Bibles.
Thus my take on this is that what God wanted to be in his Word, is what is in there now. That is why works such as that of the Book of Enoch aren't included in the typical Bible.Another rendition or meaning of 2 Tim. is Scripture is given, or inspired, words that would give a different twist to the text. (Translation in previous post ESV, other translations KJV, and I believe RSV).Of course many stories have morals, but the question is (at least in my humble opinion) is that if we cannot credit the Bible everywhere, how do we choose. Let me give an example (note, I'd rather not have posted this, but as it is to prove a point, I do not mean to attack anyone with this statement, and ask that I not get replies to this specific thing):1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--So it is saying do not associate with those people. Now, how should this be interpreted? (Rhetorical, please do not respond to this question as it is more intended to inspire thought)AS for Bible Contradictions, please present them to me and I would be happy to do my best to explain them to you, or if there is already a current thread, please direct me as I'm still a noob.(Apologies for length) And Prophecy. I'll throw a few out there.#1. Daniel 2. Nebs image. Interpretation it is about the world powers. what happens:Gold = Babylon
Silver = Medo-Persia
Bronze = Greece
Iron = Rome
Feet = modern day
Stone = Christ and his return (this part is yet to be fulfilled)#2. Also in Daniel. A retelling with more specifics. Dan. 8Read it. I recommend e-sword if you do not have a current thing you use to read the Bible. Electronic and quick and easy to use (free)Interpretation is given in vv. 17-27. Note the little things as well. Meds &Persians referenced two horns, one higher than the other as in one of the kingdoms was a bit above the other. Greece, it split into four. aka Alexanders Generals. Note also it is referred to as moving very quickly.One last one # 3.Ezekiel 26. Prophecy concerning Tyre. Told it would be scraped bare. When Alexander came through he conquered the island city. how? He scarped everything off of the old wreckage and made a causeway. As for spreading of nets, there are actually pictures of people spreading there nets there. (If you think it is slightly corny, I guess that is fine, but its almost like court evidence of Bible prophecy fulfilled.)