Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Bible inaccuracies.

  • 30-07-2006 10:47pm
    #1
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,013 ✭✭✭


    Hi,
    One of the most frequent used arguments by Christians is the narrative in the Bible, particularly The New Testament. Many Christians consider this to be historically accurate. They sight, the miracles in The New Testament as evidence Jesus is Christ, son of God.

    I say they have a point, if the Bible is historically accurate.

    However I don't consider The Bible historically accurate. I consider it a biased polemic written by followers of Jesus that ultimately want you to force you to a particular conclusion.

    What are people's opinions on this one?
    It would interesting to invite some people from the Christianity forum and we could debate / discuss the accuracy of the Bible.
    Tim.


Comments

  • #2
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    TBH there probably won't be much debate here.

    Regarding the Christian POV there's already been plenty of threads in the Christianity forum on this. I can't see any believers particularly interested in coming here to rehash them. (Can't blame them either).

    Ultimately you either have faith that the writings in the bible are true, or you don't.


  • #3
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    True. Its has and is being debated to death over in Christianity. See here for a long running thread with fundamentalist creationists who refuse to accept evolution.

    The general view is that if you take the NT as literal you have to thae the OT as literal too. There are some verses in the NT somewhere about Jesus going on about Moses and that he died for our original sin (i.e. adam and eve). I'm too lazy to find them again! :o

    So if follows (for born agains mostly I guess) that the flood and a young earth created in six days are literal events. You could also argue for example that the tower of babel built to reach heaven suggests a flat earth of course creationists deny this belief. The agruements are endless (and often quite amusing in their ridiculousness).

    This thread deals primairly with the OT for the reason that the NT and Jesus as saviour is essentially rubbish without it.
    Feel free to join the mayhem.


  • #4
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    There's a lot of evidence to suggest that some of the NT was fabricated, if not all of it. The area was part of the Roman Empire at the time, and if there is one thing Roman's do well it is run their empire. Many sources that should have referenced the events of the NT (if they occured) simply didn't.

    Apparently the town of Bethlehem didn't exist in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth, for instance.


  • #5
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > You could also argue for example that the tower of babel built to reach heaven

    ...which you kindly reminded me of the other day. I wish I'd remembered this some months back on the christianity forum when we were discussing the "ascension", the story that Jesus flew bodily up into the sky when his business was done here on earth (just as Mohammed + Mary did). This is obviously taken to be metaphorical by most modern christians, but the bible is pretty straightforward about it -- heaven is a physical place some way beyond the clouds and you can fly there. I'd forgotten that the pedigree of theistic aviation goes back much further that the NT... :)


  • #6
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    and more recently even, the assumption of Mary into heaven wasn't thought up until the fifth century and didn't become official RC dogma until 50 years ago after the pope had a bit of a think about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,849 ✭✭✭condra


    Matthew 4:8
    Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
    *The earth is not flat.

    Leviticus 11:20-22
    All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
    *Insects have 6 legs, not 4. [and who is he to tell me what I can or cant eat anyway! :P]

    Nothing to do with history but I like this quote:
    Matthew 10:34
    Jesus: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.


  • #8
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    womoma wrote:
    Nothing to do with history but I like this quote:
    Matthew 10:34
    Jesus: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

    At least that one is accurate. Although I'll think you'll find that the correct translation of sword is actually AK-47 or in some dialects M-16.


Advertisement