"Parts of the Bible Aren't True"

[SonOfMan]

I know a lot of people (myself as a prime example) who struggle with their faith… I assume most people do, at some point in their life. Some people, like myself, have had experiences with what we would call the ‘supernatural’, in that my previous house, and the neighbouring one, was haunted. Whilst it may not be direct evidence of God Himself, it seems that there is something beyond this physical world we live in.

It sounds like your experience is subjective. I am glad that helped strengthen your faith, but a person like me isnt lucky enough to have an encounter, and therefore that is of little use to me and my faith-building.

 

[Zadeth]

It sounds like your experience is subjective. I am glad that helped strengthen your faith, but a person like me isnt lucky enough to have an encounter, and therefore that is of little use to me and my faith-building.

It wasn’t an attempt to get you to use it for faith-building, but rather an illustration of how my faith has been built even when I have doubts. Pray for God to reveal Himself to you, and perhaps he will answer. God bless.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Saying “I dont know” is the most reasonable approach. We dont have any evidence, therefore we dont have any reason to believe something happened,at least at the moment. Until there is evidence, then we can begin to investigate, and then we can see where the cards fall.

In the meantime, we can certainly use our reasoning to deem what is and isnt probable. In all these years there hasnt been a single corpse, not one remain, not one legitimate DNA sample, not one public encounter of a Bigfoot, therefore its reasonable to conclude that he most likely does not exist. To say he definitely does exist in the face of all that abscence of evidence, would be unreasonable.

But no believer says “I dont know.” They always seem to know with certainty that Bible events happened, that God exists, etc. without a single shred of evidence.

You aren’t going to get the kind of evidence you are looking for, if you are looking for evidence for God. To borrow from CS Lewis, It’s like trying to find clues in a play so you can determine that the author exists. The existence for the play is the proof, but you aren’t going to find evidence in the set, the lights, or the stage. The best you can do is find some kind of transcendence in the script or the performance of the actors that seems to point to someone else who is not part of the play at all. The author is outside and behind it all, as God is to the world.

Some may say there is no author, is all improve out there. Others can see through that even without, and not requiring, proof.

 

[Zadeth]

You aren’t going to get the kind of evidence you are looking for, if you are looking for evidence for God. To borrow from CS Lewis, It’s like trying to find clues in a play so you can determine that the author exists. The existence for the play is the proof, but you aren’t going to find evidence in the set, the lights, or the stage. The best you can do is find some kind of transcendence in the script or the performance of the actors that seems to point to someone else who is not part of the play at all. The author is outside and behind it all, as God is to the world.

Some may say there is no author, is all improve out there. Others can see through that even without, and not requiring, proof.

Or the Aquinas quote “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

[JurisPrudens]

The Old Testament is valuable only in so far as it explains and prepares for the New Testament - for the coming of Jesus.

 

[Zadeth]

The Old Testament is valuable only in so far as it explains and prepares for the New Testament - for the coming of Jesus.

Could critics not argue - “if the Old Testament is flawed/inaccurate, what is to say the New Testament is not either?”

 

[Della]

According to the archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbeman in their book *The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Scripture *(New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 61-63:

It really doesn’t tell us anything except they haven’t found anything where they’ve been looking. Troy was considered a mere legend at one time, too, until a man determined to find it did find it. King Tut’s tomb was the same. People who wanted to find something in the Valley of the Kings did find it–because they looked where others hadn’t looked. It’s not proof of anything really.

 

[Andre1000]

So an honest scientist, without any testable proof, would conclude that Bigfoot definitely exists because “absence of evidence doesnt mean evidence of absence”? Perhaps a pseudo-scientist, but not any credible professional.

I am a physics scientist, but the basic concepts of theories still applies.
Every theory has some implications and predictions that need to be tested to see if this theory is credible or not. If Bigfoot exist, then the probability to see him would be very high of course, but because he is not seen so this theory is not credible.
On the other hand some random conversation Cicero had with his wife will of course not leave any evidence, because no one would record this unimportant conversation. So if Cicero would claim that his wife told his this and that, we would have to take his word for it. No sane person would say it must be face because there is no evidence that his wife said this.
So you see that lag of evidence only disproves something only if the theory implies that there is very likely evidence.
This is the foundation of science.

 

[Della]

Could critics not argue - “if the Old Testament is flawed/inaccurate, what is to say the New Testament is not either?”

And what is to say that the accuracy of the NT is in any way dependent on the accuracy of the OT? Again, the OT is a witness to the dealings of God with man–not necessarily a chronological history. The NT, especially the Gospels are accurate–there are historical records that show this. Those who wrote the NT are obviously relating a powerful event in their lives. There’s no collusion, there’s no hiding their personal flaws and sins. There’s obviously something real that entered their lives and dramatically changed them–so much so that they spread their message to the farthest corners of the earth.

 

[Peebo]

During the transfiguration of Jesus…Moses and Elijah appeared with him…oops…Moses didn’t exist

 

[billcu1]

Or the Aquinas quote “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

Very good. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” There is faith and knowledge. Thomism shows us knowledge. But there comes a point where you just have to go on faith. His ways are not our ways. Who knows God’s plans in their entirety?

I know I don’t

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I find that explanation problematic because by the same argument and logic, “just because we cant archaelogically prove” the existence of Bigfoot doesnt mean that hes not out there. Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, apparently.

However, I think anyone who is intellectually honest will admit that Bigfoot doesn’t exist because they havent been provided with any good reasons to believe in his existence.

And yet, those same scientists will insist we continue to search for life on other planets even though there is no evidence any life ever existed anywhere other than right here on earth. When confronted with their lack of evidence, they will respond, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” or, “we haven’t explored every possibility yet.”

On the HBO show The Newsroom, there was a character named Neal who did believe in Big Foot. He makes a very well-reasoned argument about the possibility. To paraphrase: Big Foot is an “apex predator” (meaning, top of the food chain). That would mean there are fewer of his species than say, deer. He would most likely live in a forest region and stay away from urban areas.

Since we have yet to explore every last inch of our forests (although we do a good job destroying them), it is entirely possible he does exist and we have not yet encountered him.

Of course, there is one major flaw in this argument. WE ALREADY KNOW HE’S REAL! Don’t you watch the Jack Links jerky commercials?! lol

 

[St_Francis]

The absence of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot does not prove he doesn’t exist, but with no evidence whatsoever, it is not surprising that many do not believe in his existence.

WRT whether the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, escaped, etc., there is indeed evidence, which is the description in Genesis and Exodus, the establishment and recording early in history of traditions related to this event, and so on.

That’s what we have on the “pro” side. On the “anti” side, we have only an absence of evidence. No one has found physical evidence. The absence of physical evidence does not prove that something for which there is some evidence is not true.

See how this differs from the Bigfoot issue? For Bigfoot, there is mo evidence at all for his existence. For the Exodus, there is some evidence.

 

[Thorolfr]

WRT whether the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, escaped, etc., there is indeed evidence, which is the description in Genesis and Exodus, the establishment and recording early in history of traditions related to this event, and so on.

There’s also evidence that large parts of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges were put into writing centuries after the events that they supposedly describe. For example, in Genesis in talking about Abraham, it mentions the Philistines even though historians know that the Philistines did not come to this area until about the 12th century BC, long after the supposed time of Abraham. It also mentions caravans with camels in Genesis even though camels were not domesticated until a later time. There are many anachronisms in these books that demonstrate that they were probably written around the time of King Josiah of Judah in the 7th century BC and were edited by scribes into the period of the Babylonian captivity and the 2nd Temple period. Literary analysis also demonstrates that they are composite texts made up of different sometimes contradictory sources and were not written by Moses or Joshua, etc.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

In all these years there hasnt been a single corpse, not one remain, not one legitimate DNA sample, not one public encounter of a Bigfoot, therefore its reasonable to conclude that he most likely does not exist. To say he definitely does exist in the face of all that abscence of evidence, would be unreasonable.

Certainly the evidence in favor of his existance is weak at best (blurry images and eyewitness accounts of dubious veracity) making any assertion of certitude unreasonable

But no believer says “I dont know.” They always seem to know with certainty that Bible events happened, that God exists, etc. without a single shred of evidence.

The Bible itself is evidence. In fact it is a comprehensive collection of the best texts documenting God’s self revelation to man. And, of course, we who believe also have faith. :yup: You see, with the exception of mathematical proofs, no evidence is 100% conclusive. We could always quibble over whether a few primate bones found in the woods of the northwestern US are evidence of Bigfoot or just a gorilla escaped from a zoo. Everyone must decide for themselves whether the evidence that they have available is sufficient for them to believe. Those who choose to believe use faith to fill in the gaps.

 

[hadulzo]

Would it matter if parts of the Bible aren’t true? For example, I was informed that the “slavery of Jews in Egypt is a big problem. Historians don’t think it ever happened and this story plays a huge part in the Old Testament.” and that “historians are convinced Moses didn’t exist and the books attributed to Moses were therefore not written by him”.

Does this matter? I just get worried that if parts like this are false, how are we to know the rest of our beliefs aren’t also?

Aways question their sources. All your answers are in the Catechism, our second best Catholic book.

 

[billcu1]

The absence of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot does not prove he doesn’t exist, but with no evidence whatsoever, it is not surprising that many do not believe in his existence.

WRT whether the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, escaped, etc., there is indeed evidence, which is the description in Genesis and Exodus, the establishment and recording early in history of traditions related to this event, and so on.

That’s what we have on the “pro” side. On the “anti” side, we have only an absence of evidence. No one has found physical evidence. The absence of physical evidence does not prove that something for which there is some evidence is not true.

See how this differs from the Bigfoot issue? For Bigfoot, there is mo evidence at all for his existence. For the Exodus, there is some evidence.

No evidence for his existence? Except from those who have seen and heard them. I know people who have. Where my brother used to live they had 2 families. They’ve been seen giving birth, tearing the heads off bears, If you leave food for them they will leave something in return. Propaganda is indeed strong. But I don’t want to go OT.

 

[billcu1]

Aways question their sources. All your answers are in the Catechism, our second best Catholic book.

Then which is the best? We have Bible, magisterium and tradition. The holy spirit guides us through the church. Times change that’s why the Bishops are coming together in October once again.

 

[Ignatius]

Would it matter if parts of the Bible aren’t true? For example, I was informed that the “slavery of Jews in Egypt is a big problem. Historians don’t think it ever happened and this story plays a huge part in the Old Testament.” and that “historians are convinced Moses didn’t exist and the books attributed to Moses were therefore not written by him”.

Does this matter? I just get worried that if parts like this are false, how are we to know the rest of our beliefs aren’t also?

Actually, what doesn’t matter is the false opinions of those so called ‘historians’.

 

[edwest2]

The absence of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot does not prove he doesn’t exist, but with no evidence whatsoever, it is not surprising that many do not believe in his existence.

WRT whether the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, escaped, etc., there is indeed evidence, which is the description in Genesis and Exodus, the establishment and recording early in history of traditions related to this event, and so on.

That’s what we have on the “pro” side. On the “anti” side, we have only an absence of evidence. No one has found physical evidence. The absence of physical evidence does not prove that something for which there is some evidence is not true.

See how this differs from the Bigfoot issue? For Bigfoot, there is mo evidence at all for his existence. For the Exodus, there is some evidence.

The Panda was considered nonexistent and then it was found.

Another creature thought extinct for millions of years:

vertebrates.si.edu/fishes/coelacanth/coelacanth_wider.html

Ed