Christians, how credible is the Bible?

A lot of the "lack" of credibility comes more from misinterpretation than anything else. Add to that the resistance that a person may feel toward thinking they are forced to live a better life that many consider restrictive and a resistance to "doing the will of God" and you have a lot of grasping at straws to make the Biblical accounts seem incredulous.

The bulk of the Bible gives us something that no other work provides: valuable insight into the people that lived 2,000 years ago and further back. We simply lack much in the way of literary works for that period of time and so the Bible becomes particularly important to understanding the cultures of the people of the area.

Bad interpretations are often made in a semi-vacuum, one that ignores the rest of the literature and culture that is part of the people.

In Judaism (the culture of the main Biblical people) a “day” is defined from sunset to sunset. In the first chapter of Genesis, a day is defined from morning (sunrise) to evening (sunset). The belief that a day is tied to the rotation of the earth by referencing morning and evening becomes incredulous when there was no physical morning or evening during the first few days; the earth had yet to be created.

And that's where the vast majority of people stop and the conclusions, compared against the findings of science, are that: a) science is wrong; b) radiometric time measurements are inaccurate; or c) the whole account is metaphorical.

Words have different meanings. Throughout the Old Testament, we find that "earth" does not refer to the planet earth, but to where the people lived. The word for "earth", even in our modern English, has multiple meanings. Pearl S. Buck, in writing "The Good Earth" wasn't referring to the planet, but where the people lived (in this case, a farmer in China).

The flood is likely localized, which was told by the people who lived through it (and had no clue as to the breadth of the planet or the variety of flora and fauna). They related everything to where they lived. The highest mountain isn't Everest, but their highest "mountain". The flood story gains credibility when one considers three major areas of the globe where people may have lived that are amazingly flat - the North American great plains, the Argentine pampas, and the Steppes of Russia. Torrential downpours means major flooding and a torrential downpour that lasts for days could easily raise the natural water tables significantly with no place to flow quickly.

One of the weather patterns in the Midwest feeds tons of moisture into the atmosphere from the Gulf of Mexico. A flood of the millennium could easily cover even the highest elevations in this area. Did the earth open up and the "fountains" of the earth spill forth? Probably not, but when you have that kind of flooding, one asks, "Where did all this water come from?" It isn't hard to imagine that the "fountains of the earth" have opened up.

Most make the assumption that Noah gathered all the animals of the planet, but that's not what "earth" references. The number and variety of animals would have been local to the people and wouldn’t include animals common to the rest of the globe.

Pre-flood accounts are said to have occurred in the "middle east"; most people appear to assume the ark rose and fell basically at the same point of the planet. The idea is ludicrous all on its own. Anyone who has been at sea knows that the winds can cause any boat to drift for miles in just a few hours.

We have a very big boat (assuming that a cubit is the length between an average man's elbow and his fingertips) and 40 days of storm, followed by 100 days of drifting. Okay, during part of that time, the ark would have drifted from where it started to the sea which would have been well over a thousand miles. The trip to the sea would have been complete by the end of the storm. Now a hundred days drifting on the ocean? The ark could have drifted half-way (or further) around the globe. Thanks to the curvature of the earth, land could have been as close as one hundred miles away and they wouldn't have seen it.

Using common meanings and references from elsewhere in the record, the stories can be credible. It is only when one sticks with an incredulous account (which is incredibly stupid, anyway) does this story seem improbable, especially the way that it is traditionally interpreted.

1

Maybe things in the Bible haven't been disproven, but I'm sure much of it can't be proven either. They are stories. I think people concern themselves too much with trivialities, such as whether this happened or that happened, instead of understanding the messages that the stories are portraying. The fact is, it doesn't matter whether or not there was an ark, or a couple called Adam and Eve etc etc. It is how these stories affect one's character and actions in their own life. I'm not a Christian, btw, and this is the reason why. All religions tell different stories, but they are all trying to convey the same messages if you look at them closely. So, it's not the stories that are important, but what they are teaching you.

Study the original gnostic and apocrypha texts and gospels. Read what's in the Nag Hammadi and the dead sea scrolls if you want to see how credible or legitimate certain books in the bible are. They will tell you how old they are, how much of the oldest copy there is left, who likely wrote it, etc. You cannot judge the Bible as it is today. If you studies the history of the bible you would understand that Constantine and the Holy Roman Catholic Church had much, if not all, to do with its corruption and mistranslations that have lead to our common theology which is commonly mistaken for the truth and the actual bible, when it is in fact just poorly misinformed individuals horribly misinterpreting the bible. If you are truly interested, do your own research on the books in the bible and other books that were later excluded like the Book of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdelene, etc. You will find the answers you are looking for.

Hi,I have studied both testaments, here are some of the conflicting verses I found in The Old Testament:

1}(a)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN HUNDRED horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen"..-II Samuel 8:4 (b)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN THOUSAND horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen"..-I Chronicles 18:4.. So the question is 700 or 7000? 2}(a)"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah".-II Samuel 24:1(b)"And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."-I Chronicles 21:1.So, is the Lord of David then Satan? God forbid!3}(a) "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had NO CHILD until the day of her death"-II Samuel 6:23.(b)"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth:and THE FIVE SONS of Michal the daughter of Saul,whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzilai the Meholathite."-II Samuel 21:8,So, did Michal have children or not..?, there are a lot more contradictions in the old testament , showing that it could not have been holy.In the Psalm, The Muslim holy city of Makka is mentioned(original word for makka was Baca,as it's referred to in the Quran, Prophet David mentions in his Psalms 84:6:"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well, the rain also filleth the pool."The well here is a well known well of Zamzam,still present now, close to the Ka'bah.

I have read both Bible and Quran.

One simple fact that there are many "versions" of bible and none of them can be said as completely original word of God. However it may contain word of God but its difficult to separate original.

Secondly the original language of bible is not a living language for both old and new testament. All that exists today are its translations and translation can never be original!

In Contrast there is one single Quran all over the world, in all times of humanity! no two Quran text are different in arabic on face of Earth!

Also Quran is in its original language, and its original language is a living language! Quran testifies that bible "was" revealed by God but as the time passed people modified it.

so you can see what is credible??

It's all true, but there are some mistranslations. Don't limit God. He had Noah do it. You don't have to figure it out. Just become a Christian. That is what you need to figure out. See some tough stuff to figure out below.

Hebrews 4:12,13 - For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, ... and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. ~ Note: The word for discerner also means relating to judging, fit for judging, skilled in judging. The word for intents also means mind, the act of thinking, consideration, meditation, a thought. So even our thoughts are judged by God's word. The word for heart also means the centre and seat of spiritual life, the soul or mind. This explains why heart is often used for soul or spirit. The word for eyes also means the eyes of the mind, the faculty of knowing. You see, God knows our thoughts and He judges them by His word; so we better not have a corrupt mind, but believe and obey God's word with it.

Hebrews 6:4-6 - For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. ~ Note: The word for enlightened also means imbued (permeated) with saving knowledge. The word for tasted also means partook of, enjoyed, experienced. So that proves these people were real born-again Christians. The word for if here does NOT mean if. It means and, also, even, indeed, but. The NASB has the correct translation here: and then have fallen away The if is not justifiable. It makes it look like if you ever fall away then you can never get back. That is not true. and then have fallen away means that they are and still in the fallen away state. The Greek word for fall away means to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander, to error, to fall away from the true faith. But one can get out of the fallen away state by no longer being deviated from the right path, and no longer not having faith, by turning back to God. Then God's goodness leads them to repentance (Romams 2:4). This Scripture clearly indicates that a person may become a partaker of the Holy Spirit, obviously a true born-again Christian, and yet fall away and be lost.

With the design provided by God and 100 years of work. Why you got a problem with that?

I spoke to a talking donkey yesterday and I gave him a drink. Then I ripped out the page. Hmm.

Yes, the Bible is the true Word of God. It is SO credible and it is so impossible for human to make such kind of a book.