What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?
|
There is actually a lot of evidence for the Bible. When it was written, the prophets were not aware that not only were they explaining what they had seen, but that a lot of it would actually make sense. The Theological Argument, for example, is a prime example of how prophets would write things that would grow to make more sense to the the world around us over the ages. A source of knowledge? Well, the prophets definitely existed - they wrote the Bible - and I think that we can trust in that. Knowledge does not necessarily mean fact in every single case, but the Bible does teach a lot about morals and how you should treat people around you. Sometimes one or two of what it is teaching may be slightly obsolete; however, most of what is says is morally correct and therefore knowledge can be drawn from it. We also learn knowledge from what was perceived as acceptable at the time it was written. Nowadays, some sections may be obsolete, but we learn about the past and how acceptable certain things were then. Conclusion We can draw knowledge from the Bible in the morality it teaches, the history of the morality, and the actual proof there is for trusting in the Bible. One thing to note is that the bible was constructed by the First Council of Nicaea lead by Constantine in the year 325 AD, it was composed of 300 religious leaders. This council was composed of many different churchmen of many varying beliefs to construct a unified Christian state, in the end only four gospels were chosen to construct the holy bible out of around 60 gospels. (1) While some of what is in the Bible may make sense to some people, there is a considerable amount that it fails to explain or address (or which it addresses incorrectly). Further, by your own admission there are parts of the Bible which are obsolete. (2) With respect to the Bible presenting a moral guideline it does not do so effectively. It is full of contradictions and subject to a myriad of interpretations (e.g. there are how many different denominations of Christianity?). People and congregations selectively choose which moral lessons they take from the Bible and which they do not, typically according to what is socially acceptable. Morality does not derive from religion, but rather religion derives its ideas of morality from society and what is acceptable within society by its members. This is why some parts of the Bible's morality have become, as you put it, obsolete. (3) I would contend that the Bible has actually delayed moral development more than encouraged it. Because religious conceptions of morality are slow to change they often resist social progress. We see this from attitudes towards science (stem cell research) to civil rights issues (inter-racial marriages before, same-sex marriages now). (4) Acquiring a moral code because one is told that that code must be correct (and that disobeying it will result in some form of punishment) is not true knowledge. It is a belief. Learning why certain things are moral or immoral and developing a personal morality is actual knowledge. 1
point
This is your opinion and if you did a little research, you would find there is evidence. Maybe you've see the evidence and choose not to accept it. Either way it doesn't change the fact that evidence exist. You want evidence? The Bible mentions Jews, are there not Jews. It mentions Jesus, a man named Jesus lived at this time. (undisputed fact) Christianity listed in historical documents. Is there not a place called Judea? I can go on, but it is impossible to get a lump of coal to think. you kidding me? "a man named jesus lived at this time. (undisputed fact)" this is the silliest thing i ever read people even dispute the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide which happened a couple of decades ago. nothing in history can be undisputed. "bible mentions jews" hmpf there were jews already when the bible was written. (many times) 2
points
Tacitus does. "Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians. He lived in what has been called the Silver Age of Latin literature, and as well as the brevity and compactness of his Latin prose, he is known for his penetrating insights into the psychology of power politics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus "Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tacitus: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." Absolutely nothing, the bible is nothing more than concocted stories pieced together by a men for man in the attempt to gain political and social control over the week minded. There are more than a dozen stories throughout history that predate the bible with identical or nearly identical stories with minor discrepancies fit for the time and region the story took place. That being said, it is without doubt that historical stories copied each other based on the strength and impact those stories had on the people. The most effective tool to maintain control and power over the masses is to strike the fear of god in them, and portraying the illusion to the weak minded that you have a direct connection with god, human beings by nature are programmed for self preservation, that self preservation is a double edged sword, on one hand self preservation catapulted human beings to the top of the food chain but on the other hand enslaved us with fear of self annihilation if we refused to enslave our free will. 2
points
For some one trying to disprove the Bible, you have done a poor job of it. "There are more than a dozen stories throughout history that predate the bible with identical or nearly identical stories with minor discrepancies fit for the time and region the story took place." Warjin 1
point
|
