Is the Bible Authentic?

by chron82 41 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • chron82

    My wife is searching for facts that will prove to her why the Bible is or is not the authentic word of God. She knows the direction I am leaning and I have shown her a few examples of why I feel as I do. However, it is always good to hear the opinions of others.This is where you come in...

    How would you answer the following questions:

    1. Do you believe the bible is the authentic word of God or do you believe it is a hoax?

    2. Why do you feel one way or the other?

    3. How sure are you of your belief on a scale of 1 - 10?

    4. How would you reply to the Watchtower's list of evidence that they claim proves that the Bible is authentic. In particular:

    - Scientific Accurarcy

    - Historical and Archeological Accuracy

    - Fulfillment of Prophecies

    - Candor of Bible Writers

    Thank you in advance for sharing your personal opinions. It is often difficult to get people to answer questions like these in person. I really appreciate your help!

  • JWoods

    I will go with the points on #4:

    Scientific Accuracy - The account of the flood pretty much takes care of that - it is simply not physically possible.

    Historical Accuracy - Who can honestly believe people in ancient times lived 900+ years?

    Fulfillment of Prophecy - Several are problematical - "not a stone upon a stone of the temple", for example -

    Candor of Bible Writers - Probably most seem candid enough, but one cannot overlook many contradictions between them.

  • maninthemiddle

    1. Do you believe the bible is the authentic word of God or do you believe it is a hoax?

    I believe it is the word of man, I'm not sure if that represents God.

    2. Why do you feel one way or the other?

    Research, learning how a bunch of oral stories came to be "The Bible"

    3. How sure are you of your belief on a scale of 1 - 10?

    Belief that the Bible is really the word of God? Probably a 3 ???

    4. How would you reply to the Watchtower's list of evidence that they claim proves that the Bible is authentic. In particular:

    - Scientific Accurarcy

    Not at all accurate.

    - Historical and Archeological Accuracy

    John Grisham"s books are very historically accurate, that doesn't make the true.

    - Fulfillment of Prophecies

    Not factually sure about this, but it is very easy to write prophesy after it happens.

    - Candor of Bible Writers

  • leavingwt

    I enjoyed these points by John W. Loftus. . .

    1) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history. That's science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to.

    2) The next big hit came from Astronomy. The Copernican astronomical revolution as defended later by Galileo showed us that we do not live in a geocentric universe. Never did. The Biblical viewpoint, supposedly coming from a divine mind, did not understand this basic fact. The earth revolves around the sun. And we exist on a spiral arm in one galaxy of billions in the universe. The Catholic church took a big hit on this one and lost credibility in the eyes of scientists.

    3) An even bigger hit came from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and came to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why should anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? No one should. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.

    Everything after this was a forgone conclusion. The Bible was nothing more than a human product. There was no need of looking for a divine mind behind the human authors. If God revealed himself to human beings he did so in ways that are indistinguishable from him not revealing himself at all.

    Other sciences came into play as well.

    4) Archaeology has debunked many stories in the Bible. Archeologists have discovered several ancient Mesopotamian texts that predate the ones in the Bible and tell similar superstitious stories of the origins of the universe. It has also shown us there was no Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt.

    5) Psychology shows us we are largely products of our environment, that we think illogically many times, that we believe what we prefer to be true, that human beings are not evil so much as ill, largely because of their social environment. Psychology shows us there can be no wrathful God who will punish us forever because of what we believe.

    6) Anthropology has shown us from the fact that there are many different cultures around the globe and with it a great deal of religious diversity, that there are many rational ways to understand our place in this world. Human beings get along just fine living in these so-called different universes. As a result many people are embracing multiculturalism. This is contrary to any given located cultural expression of Christianity which equates their Christianity with the absolute standard for cultures as a whole. Such a parochial limited notion is absolute hogwash.

    7) Neurology shows us there is an extremely close relationship between our beliefs and neuron firings, which can be drug induced, or even surgically removed. There is therefore no need for the supernatural explanation of the soul.



    Many Christians do not believe that the bible is the word of God. But if your wife becomes a Christian he will talk to her personally and give her his word on any question she may have. Or his son will, which I am told is the same thing.

    Personally I prefer to put my faith in google. It has never failed to provide accurate and useful information that enables me to negotiate my way through life in a way that was not possible before google-ism manifest itself to us.

  • Olin Moyles Ghost
    Olin Moyles Ghost

    1) I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant "word of God" as the WTS and other fundamentalist religious groups teach.

    2) Carl Sagan said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Claiming that a collection of books is the "word of God" is extraordinary by any standard. I have yet to see the extraordinary proof to back up the claim.

    3) 10. It is crystal clear to me that the Bible is not the inerrant "word of God."


    Scientific Accuracy

    There is plenty of scientific inaccuracy in the Bible. For example, Genesis describes a global flood that covered the tallest mountains about 4000 years ago. That clearly didn't happen. First, there isn't enough water on the planet. Second, there are polar ice caps that are tens of thousands of years old. Third, there's the problem of how animals like the kangaroo came to Australia. Fourth, there are bristlecone pine trees that are over 5000 years old.

    There are also Biblical statements such as the "circle of the earth." The earth is not a circle. If it were, it would be flat. Rather, it's a sphere.

    Genesis 1 (the creation account) is full of inaccuracies, too. For example, God creates plants before he creates the sun. Ever heard of photosynthesis?

    Historical Accuracy

    To give credit where it's due, there is some accurate history in the Bible--much like other ancient books. Thus, I don't disregard everything the Bible says...I just don't view it as the inerrant word of an almighty God.

    Also, there's the global flood--which didn't happen. As well as the Exodus from Egypt, which almost certainly didn't happen in anywhere near the scale described in the Bible.

    Fulfillment of Prophecy

    The problem for Bible apologists here is that so-called fulfilled prophecies were either written after the events took place (Daniel, for example), or written by biased parties (the Gospels, for example).

    Many Christians place great stock in the fact that the Gospels record Jesus of Nazareth fulfilling hundreds of Old Testament prophecies. Well, think about it for a minute. It's undisputed that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died, and they were written by Christians--people who had a vested interest in making it appear that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah who fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies. So it would be really easy for these biased writers to--years after Jesus' death--write accounts of his life that make it appear that he fulfilled all these prophecies.

    Also, there's plenty of false prophecy in the Bible. For one example, look at the last chapter of Revelation. Several times, Jesus tells John that he's coming quickly. Well, that was nearly 2000 years ago and he hasn't come yet!

  • maninthemiddle

    - Candor of Bible Writers

    I missed this one. But I have one answer for this.

    as an example, the Jewish Essenes lived a very self denying lifestyle. If many of the writers had smiler inclinations then what you have may not be candor but simply a self-degrading style of writing.

    I would love others input on this.

  • jaguarbass

    Is the bible Authentic could go either way.

    Believing in Jesus is simple, its not like being a JW.

    At some point you have to take a leap of faith, that their is a God, or that their is no god.

    That the bible is true or that its not true.

  • PrimateDave

    Get a copy of Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman. You may find it at your local bookstore. It uses real Biblical Scholarship, yet it is very readable. The author does not set out to debunk or discredit Christianity or Judaism. Of course, the information contained in it could profoundly affect one's beliefs.

  • nicolaou
    At some point you have to take a leap of faith, that their is a God, or that their is no god.

    Nonsense. 'Believing' that there is no god requires no faith at all. That doesn't mean that there isn't a god - there might be - just that there is no question that can only be answered by his existence. There is no need for god and no evidence for him either. There IS overwhelming evidence that the natural world we observe came about through mostly understandable, non-supernatural processes.

    It really get's on my nerves when believers make statements assuming that the theist and non-theist positions have equal validity. Really? Do you think you're being reasonable?

Share this