₦airaland Forum

IblivinProgress:
➜I am asking this question to see if my doubt can be cleared beyond every reasonable doubt.
The bible (word of God) was written by men which is a fact.
The bible (word of God) says "trust no man"
The bible (word of God) says"every word of God is true"
If every word of God (Bible) is true that means we are to trust no man,i.e if a man said God said he should write something or do something he should not be trusted.
➜Now the question is should the books of the bible be trusted since we can't dispute the fact that men wrote it with their hands whether they say they were inspired by God or not we were not there with them to confirm.

Kobojunkie:
First and foremost, where in the Compendium of books referred to as your bible do you have the claim that those books all make up the word of this God you speak of?

2. The problem here does not concern the books but the source of your premise, which does not seem to be the book or anything presented in it. A better question would be, "Should the source of your premises be trusted?"

IblivinProgress:
✓ Kobo guy,i am talking about the Christian context which refers to the bible(scripture)as the word of God that we know was hand written by men. I was asking if the same bible says we should not trust any man are should we trust the books of the bible written by man.
My premise is from the bible that says the scripture which is the bible is the word of God.
Mind you i was talking in Christianity context.
Or was your comment a rhetoric?🤔

Kobojunkie:
Your premise is not taken from the book because nowhere in the compendium of books is it stated that your Bible( or the selected books contained) is in fact the Word of God. Also, the religion of Christianity which serves as the source of your claims is not mentioned as being a part of that contained in any of the books.

IblivinProgress:
God forbid.
Na you bring testing anology come now you say na me .go read the post from beginning.I am posting this without checking twice if i started using the word testing first.

I am asking a question which you didn't answer well citing reasons.

Oboy I no get that time to develop any foolish method not to talk of verifying it and then guaranteeing others.

You can't remove a mole in another when you have a beam in yours.

Do you think you have removed all the mole in your eyes?🤔

IblivinProgress:
I no go quote scripture to prove you wrong or prove me right!
It is not my bible. I was done with the conversation ✌️

Gabrielshow24:
Unlike the Quran and the hadiths the bible provides historical records and evidences!

And to the op:
The bible says we should test all spirits! That's why we use Scientific methods of testing such as internal evidence test, external evidence test and bibliographic test. So far, the bible has an high degree of reliability! As compared to some plagiarized copy of it👀

OlawaleBammie:
If not that ur brain has dec4yed, didn't you see where I said he should not trust bible?? Or u re bl!nd like ur master??

Antichristian2:
Yeah, na the record Una dey follow now! That's why Christianity keep having more and more denominations! And you'll see a pastor slapping in church for sleeping!



How high is the degree of reliability?
How is the Bible a scripture?
It is said that Moses wrote the Pentateuch which is the first five books of the old testament, he even wrote his death story!

Was Jesus involved in the writing of the new testament?

Books that were just written by laymen to some people or some congregations as letters...

Gabrielshow24:
Ad hominems won't strengthen your argument. Stick to the issue at hand and engage as an intellectual, rather than the charlatan your prophet has groomed you to be.

Regardless of your allusions, the Bible holds more reliability than your Quran!

The bible is a collection of scripture🤨 so why the stupid question?

Antichristian2:
Na Bible groom you to abuse? No wonder Jesus was said to have been abusing his disciples, Sadducees and Pharisees about!
Reliability my foot!

Who give am reliability?

Paul wrote letters to some people they call am scripture!
Peter that denied Jesus too wrote what they call scripture!

And they call the Bible reliable!

Gabrielshow24:
Why not discuss it with scientists if you consider yourself so knowledgeable? 🤨 It's a well-established fact that the Bible offers a high degree of reliability. It passes the internal evidence test, the external evidence test, and the bibliographic test!

Your so-called "comeback" is quite petty and frankly pathetic. 🤕 I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Antichristian2:
Scientists?

No be only scientists!

Which tests did the Bible pass?
Who did the tests?
Where and how was the test done?

Gabrielshow24:
They're all available online! 🤨 Don't be naive; we're in the 21st century! Just search Google for information about these tests, and you'll find a plethora of evidence showing how the Bible passes them. 🤧

Your response reveals just how ignorant you are, much like your prophet. 🤨 It seems you're desperate for attention and willing to do anything to stay relevant!

Antichristian2:
I pray your ignorance is not generational! That a person calls himself Gabriel doesn't make him have sense nor intelligent!

Antichristian2:
It's always you a Christian Vs them Muslims! Even if they don't come to you you must still mention them.

Why should the Bible be trusted?

MightySparrow:
He merely remarked about trusting in khuran. Have you taken your carnel's urine today?

Antichristian2:
Khuran? Which schools did you attend?

Go get a refund please!

Gabrielshow24:
Totally irrelevant 🤨. Address the subject matter or shut up!

Every scholar out there both theists and atheists acknowledge the bible's credibility!
But one nairaland buffoon thinks otherwise and wants us to hold him at face value —without any evidence of some sorts.

Like Prophet, like servant🤨!

Conclusions from 10 Named Atheists Discrediting the Bible
1. Richard Dawkins: Argues that the Bible is filled with contradictions and moral failings, suggesting it reflects the primitive beliefs of its time rather than divine inspiration.

2. Christopher Hitchens: Claims that the Bible promotes violence and intolerance, particularly in its historical context, and that it is not a reliable moral guide.

3. Sam Harris: Points out that the Bible contains numerous scientifically inaccurate claims and that faith-based beliefs can lead to harmful consequences in society.

4. Daniel Dennett: Suggests that the Bible is a product of human culture and evolution, rather than a divine text, emphasizing its historical and cultural context.

5. Carl Sagan: Critiques the Bible for its lack of empirical evidence and argues that belief in its teachings can hinder scientific progress.

6. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Highlights the oppressive interpretations of the Bible that have been used to justify discrimination and violence against women and minorities.

7. David Silverman: Asserts that the Bible is a collection of myths and legends that lack historical accuracy and should not be taken literally.

8. Michael Shermer: Discusses how the Bible's moral teachings are often inconsistent and argues that morality can exist independently of religious texts.

9. James Randi: Critiques the miraculous claims in the Bible, suggesting they are more akin to folklore than factual events.

10. Greta Christina: Argues that the Bible's teachings on sexuality and gender are outdated and harmful, advocating for a more progressive moral framework.

10 Theists Critiquing the Bible
1. Karen Armstrong: A religious historian who critiques literal interpretations of the Bible, emphasizing the importance of historical and cultural context.

2. Bishop John Shelby Spong: A progressive theologian advocating for a more inclusive and modern understanding of faith, challenging traditional interpretations.

3. Marcus Borg: A prominent scholar who emphasizes the symbolic and metaphorical nature of biblical narratives rather than a literal reading.

4. Walter Brueggemann: An Old Testament scholar who highlights tensions and contradictions within the biblical text, encouraging critical engagement.

5. Elaine Pagels: A religious historian who examines early Christian texts, highlighting the diversity of interpretations and struggles for power that shaped the canon.

6. John Dominic Crossan: A biblical scholar who critiques traditional interpretations, particularly regarding the historical accuracy of certain narratives.

7. Rob Bell: A popular pastor and author who challenges traditional views on hell and advocates for a more inclusive understanding of Christianity.

8. Brian McLaren: A prominent voice in the emerging church movement, critiquing traditional interpretations and advocating for a socially conscious approach.

9. Peter Enns: A biblical scholar who highlights the complexities of biblical texts, encouraging a nuanced approach to interpretation.

10. N.T. Wright: While he defends the reliability of the New Testament, he also acknowledges the complexities and historical context that can lead to different interpretations.

Antichristian2:
What of the thousands of theist and atheist that don't acknowledge the Bible's credibility?

Gabrielshow24:
Your foolishness buttresses my point!
All you cited up there don't dispute its reliability they only have perceived issues with the scriptures!

MightySparrow:
Du yu rimenba
Khuran 15:6?

Antichristian2:
See liar!

1. Richard Dawkins: Argues that the Bible is filled with contradictions and moral failings, suggesting it reflects the primitive beliefs of its time rather than divine inspiration.

2. Christopher Hitchens: Claims that the Bible promotes violence and intolerance, particularly in its historical context, and that it is not a reliable moral guide.

3. Sam Harris: Points out that the Bible contains numerous scientifically inaccurate claims and that faith-based beliefs can lead to harmful consequences in society.

Antichristian2:
Ah pele!

Awon village people ti get e!

MightySparrow:
O you to whom the Reminder is revealed! You must be insane!'"
Quran 15:6

Gabrielshow24:
Don't be foolish; even the highlighted points do not dispute the Bible's reliability!

Let me clarify, since it seems you're struggling to engage your intellect. Dawkins emphasized contradictions within the Bible, Hitchens argued that the Bible promotes violence, and Harris pointed out scientifically inaccurate claims. Yet, none of them questioned its reliability!

Once again, your ignorance is astounding! Indeed, ignorance can be bliss. 🤤

Antichristian2:
Mark 3:21
When Jesus's family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is insane!"

Antichristian2:
Reliable means consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.

How can they trust what has contradictions, promotes violence and has scientific inaccuracies?

Guy i don't think you smoke weed na!

Gabrielshow24:
Your lack of context is quite burdensome. 🤨 It’s true what they say: the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree! You consistently take verses out of context

Gabrielshow24:
The definition of reliability, especially in the context of ancient texts and scriptures, refers to the consistency and trustworthiness of the information they provide. When assessing the reliability of a document like the Bible, scholars often consider several factors, including historical accuracy, manuscript evidence, and the consistency of its message across different texts and translations.

To ascertain the Bible's reliability, various tests have been employed:

Manuscript Evidence: The New Testament, for example, has over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, more than any other ancient text. This abundance allows scholars to compare and verify the text's consistency over time.

Historical Corroboration: Many events and figures mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by external historical sources, lending credibility to its accounts.

Archaeological Evidence: [/b]Numerous archaeological discoveries have supported the historical context of biblical narratives, further affirming its reliability.

Now to refute your allusions, While some passages may seem to promote violence, it's essential to consider the historical and cultural context. Many of these accounts reflect the realities of the time [b] rather than a directive for modern behavior.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook; its primary purpose is to convey spiritual truths. When interpreted within its literary and historical context, many of the so-called inaccuracies can be understood differently
Finally, many alleged contradictions can often be resolved through careful interpretation and understanding of the context in which the verses were written. Different literary styles and purposes can lead to apparent discrepancies that do not undermine the overall message.

Antichristian2:
Of course it's time to shift Goal post and define how you understand reliability as regards the Bible!

This may be right. But what is also right is that no two manuscript out of all these 5,800 are exactly the same. How then is this reliable?

This also does not prove its reliability as many events and figures have been proven to be false too from the Bible. A close example is in the Gospel of Matthew (2:16-18). It describes King Herod ordering the massacre of all boys in Bethlehem under the age of two. Historically this is untrue!

Archaeological Evidence: [/b]Numerous archaeological discoveries have supported the historical context of biblical narratives, further affirming its reliability. Also numerous archeological discoveries have disproved many parts of the Bible. The killings of the kids above would have been recorded somehow in archeology! The great flood would have also been recorded. The mass exodus of people for aorund 40 years in the wilderness, the destruction of Jericho, and others would also have been recorded!

Now to refute your allusions, While some passages may seem to promote violence, it's essential to consider the historical and cultural context. Many of these accounts reflect the realities of the time [b] rather than a directive for modern behavior. Do you consider all these when perusing Islamic texts too or should this just be one way?

The Bible is not a scientific textbook; its primary purpose is to convey spiritual truths. When interpreted within its literary and historical context, many of the so-called inaccuracies can be understood differently
Finally, many alleged contradictions can often be resolved through careful interpretation and understanding of the context in which the verses were written. Different literary styles and purposes can lead to apparent discrepancies that do not undermine the overall message. If the contradictions can be resolved then it won't be called a contradiction in the first place! For example, a common statement all across the Bible and till now is "The kingdom of God is at hand" yet it is not at hand for the past 2000 years!