I was doing some shopping on Amazon earlier today, and in the process I ran across a book entitled "Conversations with God". Being curious as to what it was about, and what people had to say, I started reading through the description and reviews. Basically the book is about a man named Neale Walsch who claims he had a direct conversation from God, and the book itself is basically a transcript of the dialog. OK.

So then I started reading through the reviews, and they were interesting to say the least. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the readers were just blasting the book... the odd part is that while I thought that most of the negative response would have been in the form of skepticism, there actually was very little of that. Instead, most of the criticism seemed to be coming from fundamentalist Christians who were saying that such a book was unbiblical, inspired by Satan, and in one case a reviewer even went as far as to suggest that any religious text other than the Bible was "bilge".

This got me to thinking (once again) about the veracity of the Bible. Ultimately I responded to one of the posts challenging the authenticity of the Bible, and how could it be any more or less valid than any other religious text or book on spiritual philosophy.

This is part of the response I made:



So the debate is this...

1. Has the Bible been corrupted? Is it truly the inerrant word of God as some claim?

2. Is there any objective evidence that can vouch for the Bible's authenticity as the word of God?

3. Is the Bible any more valid than any other religious text?

4. Just how absurd is the idea of someone having a "Conversation with God" anyway? I'm sure that many will look at Neale Walsch as being some kind of crackpot or heretic, but no one seems to challenge the idea of Moses doing the same thing 4000 years ago. For that matter, how many Christians questioned George Bush's claim that God told him to invade Iraq?

Discuss!

1.The bible is corrupte without a doubt.There are more books outhere that didn't make the final cut with the council that decide what went in there
2.I have read that Jesus' story is very similar to greek mythlogy, that guy Dionysus.Kind of fits seeing their names together. http://www.relijournal.com/Religion...and-Jesus.15449
http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/dionysus.html
Also I find it hard to believe that these people came up with all of these stories for the bible just one day out of thin air.I doubt God really told these people to write these things down
3.It depends on what you define as valid and your own religion.I would put christianity with all other religions as far as being valid.We have no way to prove they aren't but I doubt that it really is
4.I don't believe in the idea of god talking to people personally but again maybe it's because I'm not a christian

Does it really matter if a person is a Christian?

I agree with Modestgurl88. When they made the bible they chose the books that fitted in with what they wanted people to believe and left out others. Also the bible is a translation by one person (or group of people), the one used currently is the James I/VI version (I believe) so you are getting a biased view.

Ehh. I don't think there's a solid answer to this. Perhaps it is. But it's what christians have faith in, and they chose to believe it and as long as they're happy with it, does it matter?

1. I think the Bible is corrupt. To an atheist like me, it was corrupt from the start, but recently it seems really bad. All of the concepts in the book have been twisted to suit political agendas (ring a bell? Bush?) and it's become more of a tool for propaganda than a religious text.

2. I think that the idea of religion was born when ancient people realized that we could die- they couldn't understand the concept, so they comforted themselves by creating religions and deities that explained life's mysteries. To me, any religious text is a fictional book because of this theory, and although they may have some good morals and life lessons, it can't be the word of God. To me, a word of God makes no sense whatsoever- how can there be a word of God to a person who doesn't believe a god exists? So no, I don't think anything can prove that the Bible is truly the word of God.

3. Not at all. To me, it's all bogus, but I think some religions appeal to me and make more sense in my mind than others. I think Hinduism is onto something with the theory of reincarnation, and I like the Scientologist philosophy about how your failures shouldn't impact your future successes. The Christian religious text is no more valid than any other religious book unless you're a Christian.

4. I think it's highly absurd. How can you talk to something that doesn't exist in physical form, if it even exists at all? Conversing with deities seems illogical, in my opinion. If there truly is a God, doesn't he have better things to do (like watch out for the world) than talk to lowly mortals?

Well, in that case no religion is true and it's all bogus. People only chose to believe what they want to.
And as for talking to God, it's what they chose to believe. Totaly their choice. Religion helps a great many number of people through really bad times. And christians believe that God will help them and if that means they think God talks to them, and it helps them then truly that is all that matters.

I understand that it's what they chose to believe, and I have no problem with that. It's not my place to tell anyone what they should or should not believe, nor is it anyone else's. I was just stating how I felt about it. If other people get off on talking to a deity, then fine. I don't, but all the more power to them. End of story.

If anyone was to seriously study the bible, the bible it self will tell you it is corrupt. If you were to seriously pay attention to the people that claims that the bible is the word of God, their actions and reactions as they take away teachings from the bible, they by their actions will tell you the bible is corrupt. If you research the bible from its infancy and acquaint yourself with the people involved at that time with the bible and their reason/intent in putting/canonizing their prize creation, you can’t come to any other conclusion other than the bible is corrupt. It is one of the best tools man has created to dehumanize his fellow man. And has been so successful that others have copy the idea and found it also works very well for them. They (man) did not stop with religious matter, for you can find that certain of the ideals could be carried over to history books and governments and also be successful.

I have concluded that all religious text is questionable because of their intent and need to control. Whatever wisdom they impart is soon taken away as they enslave you.

I have found that if I feel the need to read a text that I can identify with in my inner person it will have to be the Toa, as it leaves out the fluff and has no desire to control. If you pay close attention to what the Toa is saying, you may find yourself understanding what the bible wanted to say if it was not seen by others as the word of God (the big lie).

Here is an example of what it says:

Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So ritual enthralls generation after generation.

Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;
But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it.

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Love acts, but without reason;
Justice acts to serve reason;
But ritual acts to enforce reason.

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;
When harmony is lost, there remains love;
When love is lost, there remains justice;
But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colourful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

Here is another translation of the same saying:

The Master doesn't try to be powerful;
thus he is truly powerful.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for power;
thus he never has enough.

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go. :D

Even though I believe in God, I do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. This is for many reasons:

1.I am agnostic. I do not believe in a set religion because to me, all religion is corrupt. This corruption comes from the Bible, which is corrupt in itself. The Bible is essentially a book made from decades of copying and pasting different stories to fit the image of God that each religion sees. There are so many inaccuracies and contradictions that it cannot be counted as a reliable source.

2. There is no evidence that the Bible is the word of God. We don't have the original transcripts of the Bible. We don't even have the copies. We have copies of copies of copies of copies. In two thousand years, the stories morph. They start out as just being stories told to each other by mouth, then they were put on paper and over the years, have been changed and evolved with the language. Things get lost in translation, get misinterpreted and eventually, become very different from the original. How do we even know if there were even words for some of the terms in the Bible today? It's like how we invent words like "whiteout". Whiteout itself is a brand, but it has changed from just a brand name to the actual action of "whiting something out." Even 100 years ago, there was no such word as "whiteout". Therefore, we cannot read the Bible and assume that all words even existed back then.

Also, the Bible is based on years of hearsay - oral stories. It's like that game of telephone. Someone says something and it goes around the room, then at the very end, the phrase is totally different from the original. I think that is exactly what has happened with the Bible.

3. No, the Bible is no more valid than other religious texts. Each religion thinks their own is the "right" one, of course, but no one can really say. Therefore, we have no idea about what is the "right" religion and so, there is no religious text that is more "right" or "valid" than others.

4. I don't know about having a conversation, but people talk to God (ie prayer) all the time. Whether or not God speaks back, I don't know. I don't think He would literally speak to you, so that you could heard him, like "Hi Georgia, how are you today?" but I do think that people can "hear" God through thoughts that plant themselves in their minds. For example, Joan of Arc was told to take up arms against England. She did so and succeeded in creating brand-new, never before seen war tactics that helped her and her people to fight off the English. Of course, she was convicted of being a witch and was executed, but I do believe that she had some sort of message from God. Another example: a friend of mine was in Europe last year, lying on the beach when this random thought came into her head "He's cheating on you." She shook it off as nonsense, but when she got back, the eventually found out that her boyfriend was indeed, cheating on her. Coincidence, maybe - but I think it's more than that.

What if it has been corrupted? So what? That only becomes a huge deal if you had assumed that 1) the Bible is always to be taken literally and 2) the bible must be infallible or it's all worthless.

If you don't assume both of those things, then the issue of corruption isn't as big. And the word "corruption" itself seems to imply that there was some more pure state that the Bible might have constituted at some earlier time. That too is an assumption.

There are some religions (in particular, some radical fundamentalist sects) that may assume all of those things, but I don't think most people do.

I find it hard to read page 3 about the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Serpent and believe that that was meant to be read literally. A tree? A snake? An apple? In many respects, that story follows the traditional pattern of countless fairy tales and myths, where some symbol is substituted as a metaphor for some deeper concept.

But that doesn't make the story any less important. Any attempt to literally understand it is bound to fail and obscure the larger lessons that the Bible wants to tell.

The Bible is a tool to teach mankind WHY God does things, not how. I think a lot of the problems stem from people assuming that it was written as a science book, or history book. Its not. If the Bible has to fit into some kind of literary category, its closer to a poetry collection than it is to being a science book. When you assume its a science textbook, of course you will find inconsistencies, (like how can the Genesis story have "days" before the Earth was created, don't we define days as the time it takes Earth to fully rotate within its orbit around the sun? How can there be a day with no Earth to define it as a day?) But, thats not the purpose. The Bible was written by men. However, it can still be the inspired Word of God at the same time. Each writer had their own unique style, their own way of mentioning things, their own way in deciding what was important to their message, and what wasn't. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all cover the life of Jesus Christ, however each book contains unique elements the others do not. Each writer, while being inspired by God, put their own unique perspectives in their work. As a Christian, I fully believe that the message of the Bible, its purpose, is accurate to God's intent, even if each individual writer may have gotten a detail or two wrong. As to books that were not included, they were examined in through detail, and found to be either fraudulent, or not inspired by God. You can either assume that the council that decided was corrupt and excluded books based on some ulterior motive, or you can believe that they really did their best in trying to figure out which books belonged, and which didn't. Those that assume they were acting out of some selfish desire will of course accuse them of being corrupt, without ever considering that they really did have an honest desire to filter out books that they truly believed were not inspired by God.

For a detailed explanation:
http://www.new-life.net/faq000.htm

I can't comment on the corrupted bit - I have no idea what it used to be. But I do doubt it is inerrant, let alone the word of God.

The Bible gets some things right that no other historical document mentioned, and only recently was verified by scientists and archaeologists. But Harry Potter is set in the real world, and mentions London and other towns, but that doesn't mean that everything in it must be true too.

Not on supernatural issues.

They can have a conversation with voices in their head, and interpret them as God. Quite easily in fact.


Quite. One 17th century quote, IIRC, is "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".

How would they know what was inspired by God...who or what gave they that authority to do that? Good intentions? If they really had good intentions they would have had none of that stuff about men being the head of the household, killing sinners is okay, slavery is okay as long as the slaves are okay and that gay people are horrible but men marrying multiple women is just great.I think trying to say they had good intentions making the decisions for what got into the book is a interesting myth.

One of my favorite books is The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupery. You can read it multiple ways: as an illustrated children's book, as a fairy tale, as a metaphysics book, as a psychological study. To call it any single one of those things and nothing else would be to underestimate it.



The very first page makes the same point about multiple interpretations. It shows a picture of a long thin line with a lump in the middle. A little boy draws it and asks people what they see. Most people see a hat. To the boy who drew it, though, it is a snake that ate an elephant.

I think many people who read the bible insist that it is a hat, and they are very, very insistent that it can never be anything else but a hat, and that you are an awful monster if you even suggest such a thing.

But it's not just a hat.

The problem is because the bible was pronounced to be the word of God by a coward of a pope who saw his place of honor slipping away and got together with his demons and came up with his elaborate scheme to keep his enemies at bay. Generation after generation now walks in folly and even if they do see the snake that ate the elephant, they right away start to repent for their evil sight for seeing the snake that ate the elephant because God through His Word (the bible) said it was a hat. God Himself and men has been silenced/mute for all eternity because of a coward of a pope. :eviltongu :fallen:

I doubt it. Most of the Biblical literalists I know are protestant, and most Catholics I know acknowledge the errors of the Bible.

Oh really? So tell, what change? So because they decided to call themselves protestant with a/the revelation that that salvation is not by works and drop some books from the bible that they copied from the catholics, they are different? Oh, okay, check out their history and them come back and tell me what is the difference.

As far as the catholics that you know acknowledging the errors of the bible, did they tell you about their replacement? They are all still contrary to what they say they believe and still hold themselves to be the sole ownership of the bible with all/full authorization held by the church, so what exactly are they/you saying? :D

urisStar, many Catholics and Protestants nowadays are totally unconcerned with fighting each other and understand that they have slightly different views on God and interpretation of the Bible. I know there are some places like Northern Ireland where this is still a hot topic for debate and bloodshed, but most people would rather just get along. Protestants reject the Pope's authority over them, but not over Catholics.
Catholics did actually permit the use of the Bible in Protestant services, because as far as the Protestant Church is concerned not every passage kept by "that coward of a pope" is correct. The Protestant Church was founded not through disagreement over the truth of the Bible but through differences in worship of God. Thus where their bibles are essentially the same, there are differences. The two are branches of the same religion, so are bound to have differences, but they are not the same.
I think that a Protestant would be offended if they were described as the same as a Catholic, and vice versa.
The Bible may not be valid in the eyes of everyone, but it's how a Catholic or a Protestant would choose to interpret this book that is key to the differences in their branches of faith. Catholics and Protestants are very different - one can't just generalise and say that they are the same. They are not.
And, come to think of it, why would a Protestant take any heed of the command of the Catholic leaders? The latter are not "superior" to Protestants, or at least in the eyes of a Protestant. So why should a Protestant even care if the Catholic Church believe the Bible to be their sole property?

Moving on...
Many things corrupt over time. The Bible has not changed for so long now, so the chances of its being corrupted are unlikely. It is more likely the world around it which has changed - where people once had faith, this faith is gone. Obviously the people who believe in the truth of the Bible do not think it's corrupt. Others who do not believe may think it is corrupt. It depends on what faith (or lack of faith) you have.

The idea of a conversation with God shouldn't be taken too literally. After all, Joan of Arc claimed that she spoke with God but later described it as a sort of vision in her head rather than a conversation. Why converse with God if he is omnipotent and would know every word you are going to say? Whereas Moses spoke with God through the Burning Bush and by other means - perhaps because he was unsure of his faith. Joan of Arc, by contrast, was hugely sure of hers.

In the same way, as a Christian myself, I question George Bush's insistent claims that God told him to invade Iraq. I doubt this. But now many people believe that Joan of Arc was asked by God to defeat the English in France - maybe because she was successful in so many of her endeavours, and actually made a positive difference to her countrymen, she is often believed. But the Iraq war has not been as successful as the Anglo-Franco wars of the 14th-15th Centuries and so now people are even more sceptical of Bush's claims. If it had been better, maybe more people would believe his claims?

amalinaball,

You say that there is a difference between the catholics and the protestants? What is the difference? There is only one God so why is there a difference and why do you see it as a good thing that protestants would be offended? The only difference I can see is your claims of each being different when in reality you are the same.

Do you believe that God is okay with what you see as difference when He has no favorites and is impartial? Do you believe that God is taking sides when He has proclaimed ALL to be His children? :D

The difference is that Protestants don't wish to follow the rule of God as interpreted through the Pope. Catholics do. That doesn't make either group the favourite, or "more right" - just differences in the hierarchical structure, and some beliefs.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain alternative writings of the books of the Old Testament - so it is undoubted that it has changed, and the New Testament wasn't formally written and consolidated until 300AD. Therefore, the "truth" of the books was shaky to start out with.

Personally, I see the Bible corrupted a lot - especially from those who use it a lot. I see more emphasis placed on select parts of the Bible - in regards to creationism, conversion of others, preaching the Word using fantastic amounts of money, and condemning the actions of others - than other select parts - the meek shall inherit, support the poor, love your neighbour etc.

Ummm, Uri, if you don't think that there are differences between Protestants and Catholics, I suggest you do a little research. There are differences. Protestants do not use rosary beads to pray, as Catholics do, do not use confessional booths, as Protestants believe that asking for forgiveness from God is a personal thing, and that priests are not necessary to act as an intercessor. Protestants do not practice communion weekly, as they believe that if you take the bread and wine (nowadays its usually just grape juice, its symbolic) weekly, it becomes merely a routine, and loses its sacramental quality, we also believe that the bread and wine does not literally become Christ's flesh and blood, but is merely symbolic, Catholics believe that the bread and wine transfixes into Christ's flesh and blood. Catholics use icons to pray, such as statues to Mary, Protestants don't believe in using a statue to focus your prayers on. Protestants pray directly to God. That doesn't mean Catholics are worshiping the statue, they are merely using it as a focal point for their thoughts to bring it to God. Catholics have more books in their Bible, that the Protestant church rejects, which we call the Apocrypha. There are plenty of differences. However, I do believe that God is ok. Catholics and Protestants both agree on the only thing Christ requires to achieve salvation. Both Catholics and Protestants believe in John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

This is Christ's requirement for salvation. As a Protestant, I acknowledge there are differences in faith between myself and my Catholic friends. However, none of those differences have to do with the fundamental belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior. As such, Protestants and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. I have 3 brothers myself. We are a lot alike, in a lot of different things...however, we are also different. We have different interests, we have different tastes in women, we like different foods, we like different political candidates, we wear different clothes, listen to different music...however, we are still brothers. The differences between Protestants and Catholics relate to how we worship, not who we worship. Protestants and Catholics both worship the same God. We are different from each other, but both loved by Christ, as my parents love all 4 of their unique, different from each other, sons.

davious,

All surface/flower and no fruit, talk to me about the fruit and tell me the difference is...

calalily-you are more insightful and the last part of your post speaks to fruit, however in this regard they are the same, there is no difference. Here the fruit is treated like the flower and only shows the confusion both shares. In fact both have not a clue! :D

I am fruit and I have a clue - I'm Catholic :D

It is not fair to generalise, urisStar, and say that Catholics and Protestants are the same. If they were the same then they would have acknowledged this long ago - but they are not. There are fundamental differences in prayer, belief and interpretation of the Bible - for instance, Catholics are especially respectful to the Virgin Mary; Protestants, while respectful, hold her in a different and more human light.

I would think a Protestant would be offended because there is no point in bunching Christians together. Just as in Islam there are Sunnis and Shi‘ites, so in Christianity there are fundamental differences that need to be understood. Nowadays there isn't nearly so much of the idea that if you worship in the wrong way you are going to Hell, ect. But I agree with davious when he says that it is how one worships that is important. I think it is difficult for a non-believer to grasp, how a person can think there own faith is true while accepting other faiths. But sometimes there is no point in loathing someone else's way of doing things just because you can. So basically a Catholic might be offended about being called a Protestant because then his/her choice of worship and belief is being totally overlooked.

I think it's pretty fair to say that Jews and Christians believe in the same God; some major differences exist in the importance of the Holy Spirit and, of course, the importance of Jesus. But other than that, Jews and Christians believe in the same core God. If it is how you say, then that automatically means Jews and Christians are the same and that is not true at all.

Yes, I do believe that God is ok with our differences, and I do believe that He would love us all equally. So long as we find the way to worship Him that suits us best then of course it would be fine for Him to accept us for our differences. But people themselves may choose Catholicism or Protestantism for specific reasons - so long as they wholly believe and trust in their own reasoning I'm sure God would be fine with it.

Getting back on-topic - the Bible may or may not be considered corrupt. It is all down to opinion, and even then many people will still have faith. A lot of people don't see the Bible as the word of God, per se, but a truthful interpretation of His word by His followers. The only way one could really, definitely say that the Bible was the word of God is for Him to have written it out Himself which is beside the point of God - there's no point in us believing only when we have seen a divine miracle. We can only truly believe if that faith comes from not having seen Him in the flesh, but through our choice. I don't think that it's a good idea to look to the Bible to magically find Christian faith - you have to find your faith another way. The Bible then is an anchor for your faith. So maybe if you have your faith before you read the Bible and muddle yourself in with all the talk of corrupt Popes and contradictions, then it doesn't matter. You have your faith no matter what, regardless of whether you believe in following the Bible. If the Bible was written by one person, I could maybe understand all the controversy - but it was written by many different hands and therefore differences in faith and belief are to be expected. And I don't think that is intentionally corrupt.