Can the Bible reveal absolute truth?

[zooloo]

I asked this in another thread and I would like to repeat it here to avoid possible hijacking

Christians base their beliefs on the Bible.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal absolute truth.


Not sure how well I've put it but I would be genuinely interested any responses

My thinking behind this is:

There are two groups of Christians, each group believe they will go to Heaven and the other group will go to Hell.

Both groups believe this because it is written in the Bible which means it is fact.

If an expert from each group discuss the conflict they reach stalemate. One quotes "White" the other quotes "Black". The answer is "This quote explains Black" the reply "No, this explains Black". Back and forth.

Both groups support their view by reference to the Bible, indeed that is why they hold their view.

Neither group can prove their point to the satisfaction of the other.

There are no contradictions in the Bible so both cannot be right.

The Bible doesn't offer a definitive answer, if it did there would be no conflict.

If the Bible cannot provide a definitive answer it cannot reveal the "single" (Absolute?) truth.


Your opinion would be a kindness. Thank you.

[This Guy]

John 3, 16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mark 16,16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Just an example of the "no contradictions"

One group reads John 3, 16, and says only believing is required. Another group reads John, and Mark, and says, yes, you must believe, but you must also be baptized. They see no contradiction. Believing is required, but so is baptism.

If this represents a contradiction or not, I'll leave to others to decide. But at best, it shows that there is a lot of room for interpretation in the bible. Seems strange that god would inspire a book to guide his chosen people, and allow those inspired writers to write in such a way as to allow so many different interpretations.

Cain and Able both made an offering to god. God was pleased with one, but not the other.

Genesis 4
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Taken together, it would appear that god does expect us to follow his will.

But, if we read on we see -

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Implying that doing well (however that is defined) is enough.

You have folks that love their neighbor, and then you have the Phelps, who seem to hate everyone that isn't them. Both use the bible to back up their actions.

Yep, it's a pretty screwed up mess IMHO.

I'm of the opinion that if you really try, and you pick out the right verses, you can back up just about anything using the bible as your guide.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by This Guy

John 3, 16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mark 16,16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Just an example of the "no contradictions"

One group reads John 3, 16, and says only believing is required. Another group reads John, and Mark, and says, yes, you must believe, but you must also be baptized. They see no contradiction. Believing is required, but so is baptism.

If this represents a contradiction or not, I'll leave to others to decide. But at best, it shows that there is a lot of room for interpretation in the bible. Seems strange that god would inspire a book to guide his chosen people, and allow those inspired writers to write in such a way as to allow so many different interpretations.

.

Or perhaps it's just senile.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand. Mark Twain

[triadboy]

Originally Posted by zooloo

If the Bible cannot provide a definitive answer it cannot reveal the "single" (Absolute?) truth.

Why do we expect a mish-mosh of stories and myths written by ancient people [900BC - 350AD] to provide a 'life' truth?

[Cello Man]

Absolute truth by what standard? Assuming the Bible is wholly perfect (it isn't), what else could you compare it to to establish its "absolute" truth? That implies that the standard for capital-P-Perfection is something which the Bible would be measured against, not a quality that it possesses. Kinda takes the supposed word of God down a few notches when you realize that it's not immune to literary criticism, to say nothing of critical thinking in general which tears it to shreds and then asks for seconds.

And yes, with all the Bible's internal contradictions, you could support any number of mutually exclusive moral positions with scripture. One part says thou shalt not kill. Another says you should kill someone for working on the Sabbath. Not only is it just a-ok, you are in fact compelled to do so.

Speaking as a former retail worker who worked more than a few Sundays, I have a bit of a problem with that idea. Not just for saving my own skin, but I don't exactly feel the urge to stone people to death who don't agree with me. In fact I find the idea morally reprehensible.

If the Christian God exists, then it's his fault for giving me this pesky conscience that defies his own will.

[slingblade]

Absolute truth is hard to find. Subjective truth is much, much more common. Even the things we know we know, might not be known in the future, when we will know more.

So....no, I doubt it.

[Jorghnassen]

I'm pretty sure some of those "x begat y" have to be true...

[Carnegiea]

“He [the Lord] is good, his love endures forever” -- 1 Chronicles 16:34

“I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.” -- Exodus 20:4

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

TWO groups of Christians?

Hundreds more like - possibly even thousands!

One thing I find very difficult to understand is how a bunch of stories written to give an insignificant tribe of goat-herders a mythical glorious past ever got to to become what it is today.

I've tried to read the bible, but keep getting bogged down in nonsense. If anybody's read - and understood - the bit in Ezekiel (I think) where Gunderscored is ranting about demolishing a wall, then about some cushions that he's taken a dislike too, can they please explain it to me?

Is this one of the bits of the bible that you're supposed to read as an allegory? A parable? A parody even? What? Is there a cherry-pickers guide to the bible?

I also wonder just how all of these ministers, vicars, priests, rabbis, etc, etc manage to get around the "thou shalt not work on the Sabbath" law?

OK - that's enuff for now...

YBW

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

The sole purpose of the Bible is to not reveal the absolute truth, but instead it is designed to make believers out of people.

In truth, you die.

Avoid truth, by being a believer, and you can live forever.

And so it is actually SATAN who offers eternal life, SATAN is the guy who sacrifices JESUS who happens to be the living truth. With Jesus out of the way, truth is out of the way, belief then rules, and eternity comes to life.

Those who believe, never can reach the truth, for they are many steps away from truth, thanks to being believers.

[JJM 777]

As for "Bible revealing the truth" vs. "beliefs of Christians", just an example:

- Old Testament: priests must be males of Aaronic genetic lineage.
- New Testament: church leader must be "a man of one wife".
- Catholic Church: priest must be an _unmarried_ man (man of no wife at all).
- Reformed churches and synagogues have begun to allow female priests or rabbis since 1980's or so.

Analyze this.

Originally Posted by YouBelieveWHAT?

TWO groups of Christians?

Possibly he referred to the true Christians vs. the heretics.

In other words, ___write_your_church_name_here___ vs. the other churches.

Most notably, Catholic Church vs. the other churches.

Originally Posted by YouBelieveWHAT?

a mythical glorious past

The history reported in Bible is mostly as accurate (with the usual exaggerations) as history written any elsewhere in that period. Archeological findings from Syria, Egypt etc. mention many events reported in the Bible.

Originally Posted by YouBelieveWHAT?

Is there a cherry-pickers guide to the bible?

Yes, it is called "gospel of glory". Ask Pat Robertson or Benny Hinn for more information.

Originally Posted by YouBelieveWHAT?

I also wonder just how all of these ministers, vicars, priests, rabbis, etc, etc manage to get around the "thou shalt not work on the Sabbath" law?

This issue was mentioned by Jesus et al, that Temple workers are expressly expected to work on Sabbath.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by zooloo

Can the Bible reveal absolute truth?

no.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by zooloo

If the Bible cannot provide a definitive answer it cannot reveal the "single" (Absolute?) truth.

Your definition of "absolute truth" would require "absolute proof" would it not? Although I think your definition of "truth" is different than that used by the Christian groups you speak of, I think that most Christians would agree with you that the Bible doesn't offer absolute proof as most would agree that Christianity is a religion based on faith.

-Bri

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Bri

Your definition of "absolute truth" would require "absolute proof" would it not? Although I think your definition of "truth" is different than that used by the Christian groups you speak of, I think that most Christians would agree with you that the Bible doesn't offer absolute proof as most would agree that Christianity is a religion based on faith.

-Bri

My definition of absolute truth in this context would be a single answer. We haven't reached the consideration of absolute proof. So for now that's a moot point.

The fact that conflicting views can be supported fully by the Bible and with no way to determine which is actually true shows a problem with regarding the Bible as a source of absolute truth.

Christianity is a religion based on the Bible, faith comes later.


(PS. Thank you to everyone who has answered)

[Bri]

Originally Posted by zooloo

The fact that conflicting views can be supported fully by the Bible and with no way to determine which is actually true shows a problem with regarding the Bible as a source of absolute truth.

Your point is well-taken, but I think most Christians would agree with you. Most Christians would also agree that fundies are nuts for the same reasons you think they are (i.e. they tend to vastly overstate the strength of their evidence).

Quote:

Christianity is a religion based on the Bible, faith comes later.

I'm not a Christian myself, but I'm not sure Christians would agree with this. I think most would agree that they have faith that the Bible presents certain basic truths, but few (including the literalists) would claim that the Bible contains absolutely provable facts.

ETA: I guess what I'm getting at is that you're using the term "absolute truths" differently than a Christian probably would. Whereas you use the term to mean something that is absolutely provable, a Christian would use the term to mean something that is true but not necessarily provable. Therefore, a Christian (even a Bible literalist) would likely not think the point made in the OP is much of a revelation because they don't require proof to believe the Bible to be true (that's why they call it "faith").

-Bri

[H3LL]

Bats are birds.

It's true

.

[Nim Chimpsky]

I think a more important question is why they think they have to use the word TRUTH when referring to their beliefs. Much in the same way the 9/11 "TRUTH" movement uses the same term, they are all covering up the actual inadequacy of their position. They have zero actual evidence so they have to use the word to give an illusion of validity.

Truth is connected to reality and fact. Religion is neither of these.

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Bri

Your point is well-taken, but I think most Christians would agree with you. Most Christians would also agree that fundies are nuts for the same reasons you think they are (i.e. they tend to vastly overstate the strength of their evidence).



I'm not a Christian myself, but I'm not sure Christians would agree with this. I think most would agree that they have faith that the Bible presents certain basic truths, but few (including the literalists) would claim that the Bible contains absolutely provable facts.

ETA: I guess what I'm getting at is that you're using the term "absolute truths" differently than a Christian probably would. Whereas you use the term to mean something that is absolutely provable, a Christian would use the term to mean something that is true but not necessarily provable. Therefore, a Christian (even a Bible literalist) would likely not think the point made in the OP is much of a revelation because they don't require proof to believe the Bible to be true (that's why they call it "faith").

-Bri

For Christians faith follows the Bible otherwise it would be "Faith in what?"

Even if a Christian has "faith" that their doctrine is the correct one somebody else has "faith" that the other person is certainly going to Hell and that they themselves are not. Again this just leads to stalemate and trading quotes.

I'm not asking if there is absolute proof for the common doctrine, it is that the common doctrine is missing. Asking for absolute proof is a hurdle we haven't yet reached.

Christians may agree the Bible contains certain basic truths but they cannot agree what those basis truths are and the Bible offers no definite answer (If it did conflict wouldn't arise).

I appreciate my phrasing leaves something to be desired, if I restate my question is would be: As there are Christian doctrinal differences, this shows there is no definitive answer, the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

Cheers all, your answers are helping me to form a clearer idea of what I am thinking.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Nim Chimpsky

I think a more important question is why they think they have to use the word TRUTH when referring to their beliefs.

I think what you're getting at is that truth is independent of belief. Whether or not I believe something makes no difference as to its truth. Nor does whether or not I can prove it. If it is true, it is true whether or not it can be proven. I doubt many Christians claim to be able to prove what they believe to be true. At the same time, you are likely unable to prove it to be false, making the following also an overstatement:

Quote:

Truth is connected to reality and fact. Religion is neither of these.

-Bri

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by H3LL

Bats are birds.

It's true

.

"Birds are batty! hahaha ha ha hahaha ha ha hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!"
W. Woodpecker ca.1948

[RenaissanceBiker]

Signature.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by zooloo

Christians may agree the Bible contains certain basic truths but they cannot agree what those basis truths are and the Bible offers no definite answer (If it did conflict wouldn't arise).

Nor would Christians call it "faith" if the Bible offered a definite answer. So far, you haven't said anything that a majority of Christians would likely disagree with, unless I'm misunderstanding.

Quote:

I appreciate my phrasing leaves something to be desired, if I restate my question is would be: As there are Christian doctrinal differences, this shows there is no definitive answer, the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

I believe I understood what you were getting at. My point is that I don't think most Christians would disagree since most will readily admit that their beliefs are based on faith.

-Bri

[David Swidler]

Originally Posted by H3LL

Bats are birds.

It's true

.

We must read ancient texts from a completely different societal context as if they followed the same taxonomic rules that we do.

It's true.

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Bri

Nor would Christians call it "faith" if the Bible offered a definite answer. So far, you haven't said anything that a majority of Christians would likely disagree with, unless I'm misunderstanding.



I believe I understood what you were getting at. My point is that I don't think most Christians would disagree since most will readily admit that their beliefs are based on faith.

-Bri

Sorry I missed your point I think.

The conclusion of my statement is that the Bible cannot be a source of truth in any meaningful way. Which I assume Christians would not agree with.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by zooloo

Sorry I missed your point I think.

The conclusion of my statement is that the Bible cannot be a source of truth in any meaningful way. Which I assume Christians would not agree with.

No, I don't assume they would agree, if you're saying that the Bible cannot be a source of truth. While undoubtedly not ALL beliefs based on the Bible can be true (given that there are conflicting beliefs), you seem to be implying that the Bible cannot be the source of ANY truth, which seems to be unfounded.

-Bri

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Bri

No, I don't assume they would agree, if you're saying that the Bible cannot be a source of truth. While undoubtedly not ALL beliefs based on the Bible can be true (given that there are conflicting beliefs), you seem to be implying that the Bible cannot be the source of ANY truth, which seems to be unfounded.

-Bri

The Bible may contain some truth, such as "...the distance form A to B is X" but that is all.

The Bible cannot offer an objective moral truth, nor can it be a guide on how to please its God and avoid damnation.

[Bri]

Why are trivial truths the only possible truths in the Bible? It is possible that one or more Christian sects have it entirely correct. In addition, the Bible seems pretty clear about certain things that are common among nearly all Christian beliefs ("thou shalt not murder") so it's possible that those are the things that please God, if he exists.

It's true that not all Christians who believe that their particular brand of Christianity is the only one that will save one from damnation can be correct. If that's what you're saying, I'll grant you that.

-Bri

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Bri

Why are trivial truths the only possible truths in the Bible? It is possible that one or more Christian sects have it entirely correct. In addition, the Bible seems pretty clear about certain things that are common among nearly all Christian beliefs ("thou shalt not murder") so it's possible that those are the things that please God, if he exists.

It's true that not all Christians who believe that their particular brand of Christianity is the only one that will save one from damnation can be correct. If that's what you're saying, I'll grant you that.

-Bri

Trivial truths are the only possibility because the Bible gives no definitive answer to "important" truths, hence the conflicts of doctrine. Some Christians may say the 10 Commandment alone will please God but others do not.

Yes I am saying not all versions of Christianity can be correct, also it cannot be determined which version is correct by using the Bible. This reduces the Bible to being just another book with no apparent special properties.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by zooloo

Trivial truths are the only possibility because the Bible gives no definitive answer to "important" truths, hence the conflicts of doctrine. Some Christians may say the 10 Commandment alone will please God but others do not.

Arguably, the various sects of Christianity all have common "important" beliefs based on the Bible, but the Bible offers no proof as to which, if any, of those sects are correct concerning those aspects in which they differ. However, any of them might be 100% correct, in which case the Bible would indeed contain many "important" truths. And it may even contain many "important" truths if none of them are 100% correct. It would be incorrect to say that the Bible cannot contain important truths, since in fact it may.

Quote:

This reduces the Bible to being just another book with no apparent special properties.

Although there is no definitive evidence that the Bible has any special properties, the truth is that we really don't know if the Bible has any special properties or not. If in fact the Bible is the word of God, then it certainly has special properties (if nothing else, the fact that it is the word of God). True enough though, whatever special properties the Bible might have, they're not apparent.

Your argument merely implies that Christians believe based on faith (rather than fact) that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God (literal or not), and that their interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" one. In other words, it "reduces" Christianity to a faith-based religion.

-Bri

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Bri

Arguably, the various sects of Christianity all have common "important" beliefs based on the Bible, but the Bible offers no proof as to which, if any, of those sects are correct concerning those aspects in which they differ. However, any of them might be 100% correct, in which case the Bible would indeed contain many "important" truths. And it may even contain many "important" truths if none of them are 100% correct. It would be incorrect to say that the Bible cannot contain important truths, since in fact it may.

Although there is no definitive evidence that the Bible has any special properties, the truth is that we really don't know if the Bible has any special properties or not. If in fact the Bible is the word of God, then it certainly has special properties (if nothing else, the fact that it is the word of God). True enough though, whatever special properties the Bible might have, they're not apparent.

Your argument merely implies that Christians believe based on faith (rather than fact) that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God (literal or not), and that their interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" one. In other words, it "reduces" Christianity to a faith-based religion.

-Bri

I would have thought an important truth would by definition be 100% correct.

The Bible may contain important truths or it may not. If it does they are not made explicit and it must contain non-truths hence the conflicts amongst Christians. The Bible cannot be used to determine between what it states it true and what it states is false. So as a reliable source of the truth it fails.

The London A to Z may contain important truths (Other then directions) because we don't know that it doesn't. This can be said for any book so the Bible has no distinct role.

If Christianity is reduced to a faith based religion or not is a side issue. The book that governs it offers no way to determine which of the various opinions is the correct one, they are all supported by the Bible to the satisfaction of those who do believe. To follow an incorrect version is to damn oneself to everlasting torment if one has faith in one's view or not.

How or why Christians believe the Bible to be true I do not comment on.

How or why Christians arrive at the conclusions they do I do not comment on.

I merely observe that view based directly on the Bible are contradictory and that contradiction cannot be resolved by the Bible. The absolute truth is definitive, the Bible is not definite therefore it cannot reveal absolute truth.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by zooloo

I would have thought an important truth would by definition be 100% correct.

You misunderstood. I said that if no Christian sect is 100% correct in their beliefs, that still wouldn't preclude the Bible from containing "important" truths.

Quote:

The Bible may contain important truths or it may not.

I completely agree. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along. But doesn't that statement contradict your earlier statement that the Bible cannot contain important truths?

Quote:

If it does they are not made explicit and it must contain non-truths hence the conflicts amongst Christians.

It's no secret that the Bible is not explicit. However, it doesn't follow logically that if some truths in the Bible are not explicit, that it must contain non-truths.

Quote:

The Bible cannot be used to determine between what it states it true and what it states is false. So as a reliable source of the truth it fails.

No argument there. A Christian who believes something in the Bible to be true (particularly something that cannot be proven true) holds a faith-based belief. Hence, Christianity is a faith-based religion.

Quote:

The London A to Z may contain important truths (Other then directions) because we don't know that it doesn't. This can be said for any book so the Bible has no distinct role.

What sort of distinct role would you expect it to have? More to the point, what distinct role do you think Christians believe that it has that it doesn't have?

Quote:

If Christianity is reduced to a faith based religion or not is a side issue. The book that governs it offers no way to determine which of the various opinions is the correct one, they are all supported by the Bible to the satisfaction of those who do believe.

Yup. Christianity is a religion based on faith.

Quote:

To follow an incorrect version is to damn oneself to everlasting torment if one has faith in one's view or not.

That would depend on what the truth actually is, and this we will probably never know unless God exists and chooses to tell us.

Quote:

How or why Christians believe the Bible to be true I do not comment on.

How or why Christians arrive at the conclusions they do I do not comment on.

I merely observe that view based directly on the Bible are contradictory and that contradiction cannot be resolved by the Bible.

The views are based on interpretations of the Bible which are contradictory. It is true that these contradictory interpretations cannot be resolved by the Bible (or for most of them any other source that we know of). That's why they are faith-based beliefs. If they could be resolved, they would instead be fact-based beliefs.

Quote:

The absolute truth is definitive, the Bible is not definite therefore it cannot reveal absolute truth.

To reveal absolute truth requires absolute proof. No, you won't find absolute proof of much in the Bible. Otherwise, Christianity wouldn't be faith-based.

-Bri

[zooloo]

Thank you for taking the time to respond Bri, it is certainly helping me focus and clarify what I'm thinking.

Quote:

You misunderstood. I said that if no Christian sect is 100% correct in their beliefs, that still wouldn't preclude the Bible from containing "important" truths.

My poor phrasing, it would be better if I said: If the Bible does contain important truths they are not revealed.

It is true it may contain "important" truths but that could be said for anything else.

Quote:

It's no secret that the Bible is not explicit. However, it doesn't follow logically that if some truths in the Bible are not explicit, that it must contain non-truths.

If there are contradictory truths all supported fully by the Bible only one of them can be true and thereby the others are not true.

That's why I can assert there are non-truths in the Bible.

Quote:

What sort of distinct role would you expect it to have? More to the point, what distinct role do you think Christians believe that it has that it doesn't have?

The Bible is considered to be the infallible word of God and contain very important objective truths given by God. The Bible is the guide by which one should lead one's life in order to attain a place in Heaven and avoid damnation to Hell.

Quote:

Yup. Christianity is a religion based on faith.

Christianity is a religion based on the Bible. Their faith is that the Bible is the Word of God. Faith comes second to the Bible.

Quote:

That would depend on what the truth actually is, and this we will probably never know unless God exists and chooses to tell us.

Certainly, we can never know what the truth is by reference to the Bible. By the time God reveals Himself it's too late, either you opted for the right version by luck and chance or you didn't.

So what is the usefulness of the Bible?

Quote:

The views are based on interpretations of the Bible which are contradictory. It is true that these contradictory interpretations cannot be resolved by the Bible (or for most of them any other source that we know of). That's why they are faith-based beliefs. If they could be resolved, they would instead be fact-based beliefs.

For at least some Christians the faith is faith in the Bible as fact.

Quote:

To reveal absolute truth requires absolute proof. No, you won't find absolute proof of much in the Bible. Otherwise, Christianity wouldn't be faith-based.

The issue of absolute proof is one not reached yet, if it is required or not is an issue yet to come.

The Christians faith is that the Bible is the infallible word of God.


One again Bri, thank you. I'm getting a bit bogged down with all the quote things above, if I have (and I think I may have) missed a point please bear with me.

I appreciate the time you have spent on answering.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by zooloo

Thank you for taking the time to respond Bri, it is certainly helping me focus and clarify what I'm thinking.

My pleasure. And by and large I agree with you, it's just that I'm not sure Christians would disagree.

Quote:

My poor phrasing, it would be better if I said: If the Bible does contain important truths they are not revealed.

What do you mean by "revealed?" If you mean "proven" I agree. If you mean "stated in such a way that there is no possible variance in interpretation" I also agree.

Quote:

It is true it may contain "important" truths but that could be said for anything else.

If there are contradictory truths all supported fully by the Bible only one of them can be true and thereby the others are not true.

That's why I can assert there are non-truths in the Bible.

That misinterpretation is possible could also be said for most anything else. However I wouldn't necessarily refer to possible misinterpretation as evidence of non-truth of the Bible, but rather non-truth of the interpretation.

Quote:

The Bible is considered to be the infallible word of God and contain very important objective truths given by God. The Bible is the guide by which one should lead one's life in order to attain a place in Heaven and avoid damnation to Hell.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, nor do they all believe that being Christian is a prerequisite for heaven. However, it's true that most if not all Christians believe that the Bible is the guide by which one should lead one's life, and indeed it fulfills that role for those who use it as a guide by which they lead their lives.

Those who believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God do so based on faith, not fact. It's quite evident -- even to Bible literalists -- that differing (and sometimes conflicting) interpretation of the Bible are possible. They accept their given interpretation on faith. If they believed the Bible to provide actual proof of their interpretation, indeed it would fulfill that role poorly. But I don't know of any Christian who believes that the Bible provides such proof.

Quote:

Christianity is a religion based on the Bible. Their faith is that the Bible is the Word of God. Faith comes second to the Bible.

A distinction without a difference. If a Christian's faith is that the Bible is the word of God, then the Christian religion is based on faith (that the Bible is the word of God).

Quote:

Certainly, we can never know what the truth is by reference to the Bible. By the time God reveals Himself it's too late, either you opted for the right version by luck and chance or you didn't.

So what is the usefulness of the Bible?

Those who have opted for one version over another don't believe they have done so by luck or chance. They have faith that they have done so because of God.

Quote:

For at least some Christians the faith is faith in the Bible as fact.

Faith in the Bible as fact? This is some dicey wording, because it has several meanings. The Bible IS fact (i.e. it exists), but I'm sure that's not what you mean. If you mean that Christians have faith that their interpretation of the Bible is true in the same way that one might believe that the existence of UFO's is true, then it's still a faith-based belief unless one has some compelling evidence. If you mean that Christians believe that what is stated in the Bible is provable fact, I would disagree that many if any Christians believe that.

Quote:

The issue of absolute proof is one not reached yet, if it is required or not is an issue yet to come.

I was responding to your statement that "[t]he absolute truth is definitive, the Bible is not definite therefore it cannot reveal absolute truth."

Can you name a single absolute truth for which there isn't an absolute proof?

Most Christians will admit there is no absolute proof of their beliefs in the Bible or elsewhere. They don't require absolute truth of the Bible, at least not in the way you mean it.

Quote:

One again Bri, thank you. I'm getting a bit bogged down with all the quote things above, if I have (and I think I may have) missed a point please bear with me.

I appreciate the time you have spent on answering.

Not a problem -- it's my own fault, since I started this point-by-point response.

-Bri

[Beerina]

> The Bible IS fact (i.e. it exists)

Which Bible?

There are many variants in which books they accept as canon (and probably which translations and/or original ancient texts as valid originals (at least, as original-as-still-exists anyway).)

And it's not just reformation splitoffs, either. There are plenty of existing ancient Christian church lines that never joined up with Rome.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Beerina

> The Bible IS fact (i.e. it exists)

Which Bible?

Show me a Bible -- any Bible -- and I'll show you a Bible that exists.

-Bri

[zooloo]

Bri... phew, thank you.

My use of the word "revealed" us to avoid saying "It doesn't contain the truth" because the argument is simply, it might. Which is stalemate time.

I agree with your definition, if somebody disagreed I wouldn't argue the point much.

My use of the word truth, I am having a problem with phrasing. It's considering the Bible as a source of a rather unique truth, I'm not sure what to call that truth.

The best I have so far is using Truth with a capital T to distinguish it as THE truth, unfortunately that statement doesn't really make sense. Generally I am happy to accept whichever definition suits you/them.

It's the special singular truth of the Bible I am referring to. "How to get to Heaven" could be it or an aspect.

On the Bible being fact. It is those Christians who seem to take the Bible as fact, Creationists for instance, are those who I would wish to take issue with.

I would wish to take issue with them because they are actively promoting misinformation which I believe to be at best undesirable and at worst harmful.

These extremists refer back to the Bible and one simply winds up in circular arguments going nowhere if trying to debate with them. My intention is to find a statement that avoids this circular trap.

My statement, slightly revised:

Christians support their beliefs with the Bible.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

No entirely delighted but thank you for your valuable input to improve it.

[Bri]

OK, well substituting "proven" or "stated in such a way that there is no possible variance in interpretation" for "revealed" in "if the Bible does contain important truths they are not revealed" forms statements that nearly all Christians would agree with.

So, I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying that Christians wouldn't agree with.

Quote:

It's the special singular truth of the Bible I am referring to. "How to get to Heaven" could be it or an aspect.

OK, let's use "how to get to heaven" as an example. Christians accept, on faith, that the Bible can tell them how to get to heaven. Of course, different Christians accept, again on faith, different interpretations of the Bible and therefore come to different (and sometimes contradictory) means by which to get to heaven. Christian sect "A" believes that the only way to get to heaven is to belong to sect "A" and sect "B" believes that the only way to get to heaven is to belong to sect "B". They can't both be right. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are both wrong either. I think each will generally agree that they're not both right and that they have faith that it's the other who is wrong.

Quote:

On the Bible being fact. It is those Christians who seem to take the Bible as fact, Creationists for instance, are those who I would wish to take issue with.

I would wish to take issue with them because they are actively promoting misinformation which I believe to be at best undesirable and at worst harmful.

If your issue here is that you feel that some Christians are dishonest about the strength of the evidence concerning creation, I will agree with you (and many, many Christians will also agree with you). An honest Christian will admit that their belief in creation is based on faith since there is little hard evidence to support it. That's not to say that creationism cannot be true -- it's possible that it is true. But the belief in creation is a faith-based belief like much of Christianity. And a vast majority of Christians have no problem with that, and in fact faith is a major tenet of Christianity. Some might even go so far as to say that those who insist that their beliefs are not based on faith are blasphemers for their lack of faith.

Quote:

These extremists refer back to the Bible and one simply winds up in circular arguments going nowhere if trying to debate with them. My intention is to find a statement that avoids this circular trap.

I'm afraid that as long as they admit that their belief in the accuracy of their particular interpretation of the Bible is based on faith, there's not much arguing with them. The real fight is with the minority of Christians who overstate their argument, such as the Intelligent Designers who attempt to equate a faith-based belief with a belief based on evidence (i.e. a scientific theory).

Quote:

My statement, slightly revised:

Christians support their beliefs with the Bible.
There are conflicting Christian beliefs.
This shows the Bible has no definitive answer.
So the Bible cannot be said to reveal the Truth.

No entirely delighted but thank you for your valuable input to improve it.

I still think it's purposely vague, to the point of being inaccurate. I think if you were to clarify it, you'd see that you have a statement that nearly all Christians would agree with, except perhaps those who don't admit that their beliefs are based on faith. You are better off enlisting those Christians of faith in the fight against the likes of the Intelligent Designers rather than turning them off by making inaccurate blanket statements about the Bible.

-Bri

[zooloo]

Originally Posted by Bri

...forms statements that nearly all Christians would agree with.

So, I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying that Christians wouldn't agree with.

Some Christians may agree but the more literalist one's, in my experience, certainly don't. It those who wouldn't agree I am considering.

The intention of my statement is to show that the Bible is cannot be used to determine truth. If it cannot be used to determine truth, it cannot be used to support truth .

(By the belief that Bible is: self-contained, it cannot be tested and it is not contradictory)

Quote:

OK, let's use "how to get to heaven" as an example. Christians accept, on faith, that the Bible can tell them how to get to heaven. Of course, different Christians accept, again... that they have faith that it's the other who is wrong.

Only one can be right and the Bible cannot be used to show which one is right and which one is wrong. As the Bible fully supports both views it fails as a source of truth.

It may or may not contain a truth but because it isn't definite it cannot be used as a source for truth.

Quote:

I'm afraid that as long as they admit that their belief in the accuracy of their particular interpretation of the Bible is based on faith, there's not much arguing with them. The real fight is with the minority of Christians who overstate their argument, such as the Intelligent Designers who attempt to equate a faith-based belief with a belief based on evidence (i.e. a scientific theory).

The people I speak of will say that evolution is a faith just like the Bible is. Their idea of faith is slightly peculiar.

Quote:

I still think it's purposely vague, to the point of being inaccurate. I think if you were to clarify it, you'd see that you have a statement that nearly all Christians would agree with, except perhaps those who don't admit that their beliefs are based on faith. You are better off enlisting those Christians of faith in the fight against the likes of the Intelligent Designers rather than turning them off by making inaccurate blanket statements about the Bible.

-Bri

I don't wish to hunt people down and destroy their beliefs. What I am attempting is put put the Bible outside the realm of debate (Unless of course it's obviously relevant).

My (intended) statement would never be accepted but neither can they refute it. Anything they can say to dismiss the opposing view those who oppose can do likewise.

It pre-empts them quoting the Bible at me to support their case. That just leads to a "Yes it is", "No it isn't" dead-end.

Is it anymore than a rhetorical device? Perhaps not, I hope it is a solid argument against the supposed reality of the Bible. If it's a just an awkward question then that will do.

(I've shifted from Truth to truth, this is intentional. It may or may not be permanent)

Cheers.

[Hourglassmemory]

Not to my knowledge, no.
Unless you've been told otherwise by those who really (repeat, "really") want to believe that it is, indeed the absolute truth.