"Telephone" and the Bible

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Lesley, Apr 3, 2009.

  1. Lesley

    Lesley Registered Member

    If people cannot play a game of "telephone" without messing up the original phrase...how can anyone really be sure about the bible being true?

    These stories were passed down orally for generations prior to being written down (OPERATOR!) and then translated into many different languages before evolving into what we know as the Bible today.

    Sure, there are many great stories in the bible. I equate them to Aesop's fables...most are meant to teach some sort of morality lesson. But if you see some guy walking on water or hear the sky talking tomorrow, I'd be more apt to believe someone dropped acid in your coke than believe you're witnessing the second coming.

    I just don't see how it's possible for someone to think that book is 100% factual.

    I'm just sayin'.

  2. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    That's the common argument a lot of people use against the bible. It's one of the reasons I don't think it should be followed implicitly.
  3. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - First of all, the game of telephone requires its participants to whisper... but I know what you are saying. Are you sure that the stories were passed down orally for generations? Are you completely sure? Many of the books are letters to whole nations, or just cities, so obviously they had to be written down.

    The book is not 100% accurate because of errors in the transcription and translation. But here's the thing, the Biblical account is vastly more reliable than the accounts of figures like Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Alexander the Great, etc. If you can believe the stories about them then you should be able to believe the stories in the Bible.
  4. Lesley

    Lesley Registered Member

    The biggest issue I have with that argument FTS, is that generations of people haven't lived their lives according the accounts of Plato, Aristotle, et al.
  5. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - Ok. That's cool lol. Doesn't change what I said though. If you think the writings about them are accurate then you should think the writings of the Bible are correct... maybe not the parts explicitly about God's influence, but things like the wanderings in the desert, the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus' life, etc. Basically all the historical accounts you should consider as accurate.
  6. Lesley

    Lesley Registered Member

    Your logic is flawed.

    I don't think anyone ever said Plato parted an ocean, or Caesar walked on water, or Aristotle fed a crowd of people with one fish and one loaf of bread...and if they did, I'd be just as skeptical of them as I am of the bible.

    These are things that I know to be physically impossible, and that is why I have such a hard time blindly embracing a story that's full of so much fantasy.
  7. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - Ok. Do you believe the rest of the Bible, like the entire history of the Jews, that Moses actually existed, that Moses rescued his people from Egypt, that they wandered in the desert for 40 years, etc?

    - Not to get sidetracked, but would you say something coming from nothing is possible apart from an act of God?
  8. Corona

    Corona Registered Member

    I was under the impression that no evidence for Moses being in Egypt has even been found. So no.

    This is a flawed argument in that you are limiting the responses so as to favor your response.
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2009
  9. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - Is there any evidence of the events written about Plato and Aristotle and Ceasar? Do you believe those events happened?

    - No it's not, it's simply a question. I want to know what you consider impossible so that I can more fully understand your point of view. So I will ask again: would you say something coming from nothing is possible apart from an act of God?
  10. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    There's literature, evidence, and "fossils" (so to say) of their existance and their teachings. The argument against the Bible is that there are no records of these events outside of the Bible. Now it's entirely possible that what is written could be historically accurate, but when you don't have more than one source to come from it is going to come under heavy scrutiny, now when you involve a religious undertone to your historical literature it comes under even more scrutiny. This debate is going to continue on for some time, because there is no proof that what the Bible said is true or not. There can only be speculation, on both sides.

    You're assuming that something came from nothing, and that time is limited and finite.

Share This Page