The Mythical Bible

The Bible (or any religious document for that matter) has often been described as a "Myth" or "Fairy tale" by "non believers". As a comparative study, lets propose that "believers" must prove that the "Wizard of OZ" by L. Frank Baum is a fictional account from L. Frank Baum's imagination. "Non-believers" must attempt to deny the opponents proof(s)of a fictional account.It's a role reversal if you will.1st edit; changed "roll" to "role".This message has been edited by Rocket, 05-05-2004 10:58 PM

I like it! I don't know if you'll have any takers, but I'll move this to the [forum=-6] forum. This Bud's for you!--Percy

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This is a tough one...but we ain't intersested in all this because it's easy.

the serious and studied Christian knows no proof has been, is, or will ever be available to assure the existence of God, or the reliability of the Bible. We, as Christians, believe that God's house is built on faith, and absolute proof of God will tumble that house like it were made of cards. Holy men of old were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write not only accounts of failure, but the main vein of the message running through it strong and deliberate, and that is the plan of salvation. You will find that message in the beginning of the scriptures, all down or up the road to the end of it. Such is the promise of redemption. If you have ever believed in something, or believe in something now, it does not have to be of a religious nature, then you know that there are 'feelings' associated with your believe. A strong inner conviction about something - that is how it manifests in religious convictions. Proof to me your convictions. You cannot, because their setting is found in the metaphysical, I cannot see them, you cannot see them. I sure hope this helps.

you look.....uh.......charming, really, stylish, very 'in' (LOL)

I can assure you that you don't speak for "all" Christians. The preponderance seem to believe that the existance of the universe is proof that God exists.

I was a wretch prior to the Queer eye for the straight guy make over. You can tell without the before picture my style was much improved.

Yes, God is supernatural. That means above nature, above science, and above proof. The Bible makes many statements which can be shown true or false. If those statements are correct, the bible is shown to be more reliable. If those statements are shown false, the bible is less reliable. You are confusing absolute proof with evidence. There is evidence for the existence of God, but there is not proof. It does not follow (non sequitor) that because there is not a proof there must be no evidence. Many hindus have strong convictions. Does that mean that they are right? It is good that you have strong convictions, but those are not evidence.We do have strong evidence for the existence of God (this is my assertion, there are other threads in which to debate this), and that is why I believe that God exists. Here are some books that have evidence for the existence of God and the validity of the Bible:The Case for Christ, Lee StrobelThe Case for Easter: Journalist Investigates the Evidence for the Resurrection, Lee StrobelThe Case for Faith, Lee StrobelEvidence That Demands a Verdict I and II, Josh McDowellWhen Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences, Norman Geisler & Ron BrooksCharts of Bible Prophecy, Wayne HouseThe Battle for God, Wayne HouseWhen Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties, Norman Geisler & Thomas HoweThere are countless more, I have listed only a couple. Reading books like these have strengthened my faith a lot, and I suggest that you read some of them.Rocket says: The premise that "The Wizard of OZ" is not true is not falsifiable. The "The Wizard of OZ" makes no claims we can verify. It is written about an event that took place in a location we cannot see.The bible was written about supernatural events, yes. But it includes a huge dose of claims about how and where things took place. It is concerned with matters of history which scholars and archeaologists can examine. It makes prophetic claims which can be shown true or false.Rocket,it seems that you meant to compare the wizard of oz to The Bible, but they are completely different. One deals with a location, people, and events we cannot observe/left no trace. It is not falsifiable.The other deals with well known cities and civilizations, famous kings and rulers, and well known events. It makes claims about these things. It is falsifiable.You compared "The Wizard of Oz" to the bible, and it seems like you set up the debate in such a way as to show that "The Wizard of Oz" is not falsifiable. Then you were going to return to the comparison between the Bible and the wizard of oz and claim that the Bible is not falsifiable.If you have a good analogy you can do something like that, but the analogy you made is very flawed, so you can't draw valid conslusions from it. The preponderance of Christians whom I know do not believe that. They believe because of the evidence. Your statement is mildly offensive, but since you said "preponderance," not "all" it is forgivable.This message has been edited by JT, 05-07-2004 03:44 PM

I'm sorry, I don't see how that follows.Pretend I have an encyclopedia on my desk. It's perfectly accurate in every regard. I turn to page "M" and under the heading of Mars, I take a Sharpie and add "Mars is the ninth planet in the solar system."That's an obviously false statement. But how does it make the information in the rest of the encyclopedia any less reliable? How can changing one statement affect the reliability of the rest?The statements of the Bible must be taken individually, because statements are individually true or false. You can't judge the reliability of any particular statement based on the reliability of the whole.

I agree in that each item should be, if it is contentious in anyway, be examined on it's own merits.However, in the real world, we have to make some short cuts. If a source has proven to be reliable under a wide range of circumstances then I might accept something from there more easily. The converse is, of course, also true.However, even that has some subtleties. We should consider the particular class of information we are getting. I will tend to believe my doctor on health issues as he has shown himself to be reliable in the past. I might not be any quicker to accept financial advice from him than my mechanic.The Bible is not intending to be a science book. If it gets that wrong I might not let that tarnish the rest of it's message anymore than I would let poor financial advice from my doc influence my acceptance of his medical advice.In the end, if it is important to get the best possible answer. I do agree that each issue stands on its own.

It's kind of like the forum.If Ned says that something is true, well, he's usually right. If it's not too contentious I might accept it without argument. That might not be true for Whatever, for instance.But Whatever and Ned are under the same onus - supporting their statements whenever asked. It's just that, because of a combinantion of credibility and the contentiousness of the statement in question, we don't bother to ask, sometimes.The Bible is right about a lot of things. But supporters of the Bible should be prepared to offer more support than "the Bible is usually right" for any given Bible statement.

Your encyclopedia example is very good, so I'll use it.Let us say that I look up Mars, and the encyclopedia says it is the ninth planet from the sun. There are several places in a full encyclopedia where I could find out that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun. For example I could look under "space travel", "greek mythology", or "solar system" and find the position of Mars.Faced with a glaring inconsistency, I would probably assume that the majority ws right and that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun.There is another thing I could do. I could observe that the entries where Mars was described as the fourth planet from the sun are in the same font, size, and are exactly the same shade of black. I would also notice that those entries were formatted in exactly the same way, in neat, tidy rows.I would then look at the entry which said that Mars is the ninth planet. The "font" would be very different from the rest, as well as the rest of the details I already noted. I would come to the conclusion that someone had been tampering with my encyclopedia. Most people normally assume that a statement they read in the encyclopedia is true. That is because they trust the encyclopedia as a whole. However, I no longer trust wikipedia because someone told me that it is unreliable. I am sure that there are many true statements in it, but because I distrust the whole, I now distrust the statements, too.Anyway, it is necessary to trust something as a whole. How do you know that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun?Hey Ned, I'll get to your post in a bit.

portion of the Gospel according to the Red Queen

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In other words, you could apply textual criticism techniques to determine who wrote what in your encyclopedia, where.So, apply it to the Bible. Does the Bible give a consistent account of all events? Or are there just as many inconsistences as you would expect for a written account of several oral histories plus some epistemological material from the early Church?Start with Genesis 1 and 2, if you like. There's another thread to discuss it - we shouldn't do it here. Do they agree on all counts? Again, I don't see how that follows. If suddenly the order of the planets came under dispute, it would be ludicrous to say that "no matter what we observe, Mars is the fourth planet from the sun because my encyclopedia says so."It's one thing to accept certain sources as credible enough to be generally above reproach. It's quite another to hold those sources up above evidence from the real world.No matter what the encyclopedia or the Bible say, evidence from observation is the final abiter of what is so, and what is not so. No matter how good your encyclopedias are, they're only as good in so far as they match evidence from the real world. The distance from Earth can be calculated by parallax, and once you know the distance to all the other bodies you can place them in order from the sun.