• I believe that it is completely accurate accept for the book of Luke.

    I am not a huge church-going person, and only attend services about one time per year, however; I hold deep convictions of faith and religion, and believe that the bible is indeed the word of god and the lord. Three of the biblical books, Marc, Matt and John all tell the exact same story. They correlate the word of the lord and the rising of Christ. The only book that slightly differs is the book of Luke (hence the religion Lutheran) which details the date Christ rising slightly different than the other three. When all of these books detail the exact same events the same way, I have no reason to doubt the bible's accuracy.

  • Yes, the Bible is 100% accurate.

    The Bible is completely accurate, 100%. Admittedly you need to take parts of it on faith, but others make sense and have historical evidence. Also it has no contradictions AS LONG AS YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK OR HEBREW. The language of the day was a lot more complicated than English, with multiple meanings with explanations for a single English word. The fact that it was written by dozens of people thousands of years apart and has no contradictions is a good reason to believe.

  • YES!!! Because countless Professionals have concluded they cannot find any historical inaccuracies in the bible especially the book of Luke

    Yes, there are differences in the different books of the gospels but most dictectives consider minor differences to be in favor of the document since they would make sure to match them all up. Yes, there are differences in different version of the bile manuscripts, but those are only typos or even different ways to spell the same word. All of them still teaches the very same teaching that primarily Jesus is God and Lord. Also since the bible suggest a young Earth period of time (only about 6000 years) many have argued that is impossible due to the carbon dating, but the fact is carbon dating isn't accurate. It have been known to date a igneous rock couple of hours old the age of couple billions years old.

  • Well, there are some inaccuracies

    First, the Noah's Ark is not big enough. There are 4,475-5,000 species of mammals, and that does not include any other creatures! With two of each, the ship will need to carry about ten thousand mammals, and that still does not count the 9,000-10,000 species of birds.
    Second, the biblical missing day means that the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, went back to normal, then the shadow turned backwards ten degrees. Earth suddenly ceasing to rotate means that people will be sent flying at the same speed the Earth rotates at.

  • No the bible is not accurate

    I do not believe the Bible is at all accurate. It has been rewritten countless times by countless people. It's just like whispering a word to someone in a circle of people, and getting back a totally different word. It cannot be accurate because the original piece of literature is not intact.

  • Not literal truth.

    The Bible was written by humans and, as such, contains mistakes, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies. Many of its events are based on historical facts, but the facts have been distorted over time or in order to better convey the Bible's religious message. I believe it is an invaluable cultural resource, but should be taken as allegory and symbolism, not as 100% accurate literal truth.

  • There is Little to No Proof of the Bible Being Historically Accurate

    This question is confusing since it could be asking about historical accuracy or the personal beliefs of individuals. Fortunately, I do not believe either to be the case. So no, the Bible is not accurate. There are many inconsistencies with the timeframe of the Bible that show it is not a reliable source of information. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh was written by the Mesopotamians and dates to around 18th century BC - very much earlier than the Biblical version (Noah and the Ark) is supposed to take place. We have proof that the Epic of Gilgamesh was created by the Mesopotamians during a specific period of history and the Bible completely disregards this and tries to claim the story from approximately 1500 BC.

  • No, even excluding historical inaccuracies!

    There are differences in essentially all the copies of the new testament prior to the printing press. Yes, in the same book (different copies of Mark and this goes for all 27 books).

    There are added stories in later copies (like the adulterous woman brought before Jesus), there are out right statements that contradict between the gospels, and more.

    If you would build your faith on claims that cannot be realistically defended... Well, my points mean nothing to you. You haven't reasoned yourself into your belief, and will likely not be reasoned out of it. If you ever learn to value truth and evidence you may be able to, however belief can be cray sometimes.

    I'm not saying this should hinge your belief, however reducing the bible to what it isn't is dishonest. I don't think you have to be intellectually dishonest to be a xian. There are many xians that accept this, I know many.

    You shouldn't make claims that are demonstrably false, it makes xianity look insane.

  • Maybe if had only been translated once.

    The issue I have with the Bible is that it has multiple translations with many edited areas that vary from book to book. You have certain sects who will stand by the King James Bible and then you have those who stand by the New American Bible. I also find that a lot of the stories, while good moral lessons that don't require much common sense, are either too archaic or are too different in context throughout the versions to be considered an accurate collection. Therefore, I can conclude the Bible is far from accurate.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.