Its very silly to say there id "NO truth" in the bible. Any book of that size is likely to contain some truth. Its equally silly to assert that the Bible is the "Holy Word of God" and all assertions made therein are facts. There are many clear contradictions - do a google.
What is really annoying is the yahoos who believe the bible contains knowledge that supersedes modern science. Science has made amazing progress in the last 2,000 years. Teaching kids that God created the would in seven days is just insane.

I totally agree. The Bible is the most reliable resource on the subject of human nature. That can be said about any book older than 400 years but the Bible is the cream of the crop. Generations of men (yes men as in males) mastered the art of manipulating and controlling others. They took the best work over thousands of years and compiled it into one book. No other ancient or holy book has this advantage.   Manipulating humans is something we have to do everyday. Reading the best training manual on the subject is very wise

I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the Bible as complete nonsense. Actually there is lot of truth and wisdom through its pages. Yet what is written there should not be taken literally and non-critically (which essentially most churches demand). For sure it is not the unquestionable Word of God, as even if it is inspired by Him (if He exists in the first place), it is still a work of Man and as consequence bears all the inherent imperfections of such a work.

Of course there's some truth in the bible. It's almost impossible to imagine a work of fiction that big that doesn't state truth SOME time.

There is, by similar argument, some truth in Alice in Wonderland, and The Lord of the Rings, and other works of fiction.

The problem are those for whom 'it's in the bible' is a claim of reality - and in that there is no justification at all.

Genesis, follow the begatting, and we find The earth is supposedly only a few thousand years old. So it is wrong from the first page. I explain this to religious people, so then they get onto Jesus, so if the old tesstament is all lies, the god dude wasn't there, yet jesus claims to be his son?

The book is not a best seller for its presentation of history of which very little is verifiable. It is a book put together to market religious doctrine. Toilet paper would be the best use for most of it's pages.

I wouldn't look at the bible as anything but an epic mythological saga, along the lines of Odyssey and Iliad. While there is “truth,” for example, archaeologists did find Troy, but it’s more of a story about a particular human perspective on how the world works. In fact, the bible, particularly the Torah, is meant to do one thing... define the legitimacy of the priesthood and determine who’s God gets to rule the day.

There are thee (maybe four) authors of the Torah: P (priest) J (Yahweh—Jerusalem) E (Elohim) and D (Deuteronomist—and some scholars believe that there’s a D2—who might be the same person, writing after the fall of Jerusalem). Then of course there’s the redactor, the guy who put it all together (and it’s a guy).

And it’s all written for one reason. To justify their version of God and vilify the others. P, of the line of Aaron (the Aaronid Priests) elevated Aaron, the temple, and his legitimacy as Moses’ brother. They believed that priests must be of Aaron decent, and could only serve in the temple at Jerusalem.

J and E on the other hand believed that the priesthood should be of the lineage of Moses, and therefore took several digs at Aaron and his legitimacy—but also against the Jerusalem Priesthood. The story of the Golden Calf, for example, was written by E, and has a very political motive. First of all, he’s attacking the worship system at Shechem, AND the Aaronid priests in Jerusalem.

The entire discussion throughout the bible is really pretty simple. Who gets to worship God and where. Since most of the prophets were Aaronid, then it was Jerusalem. That is why they railed against the Israelite kings who allowed “high places,” (these were altars built so that worshippers outside the city could offer sacrifices). The Aaronid priests/prophets HATED that, and consider any king who allowed that an abomination.

This is the story of the bible... legitimacy of God. Because so many people never bother to read its actual history, they remain blissfully unaware of the politics behind it. But that’s what the bible is all about.

Even the New Testament is a political struggle: Paul’s “Christ” versus Jesus’ little brother, James. Paul would win the day because Rome would eventually sack Jerusalem, completely destroying it.

That’s the story of the bible. Who’s God gets the spotlight. It’s a fascinating story, and it’s “true” in that it’s the true story of a struggle for God, the truth is purely political.

Can anyone else see Dida's comments, or it is just me she's blocked? If so, I have to say I feel rather proud.

Apparently Dida quit and ran away.

I guess we'll never know if she changed her mind, but I have my suspicions...

"I guess what I am asking is how can anyone be so certain of things they admit they did not research?" You mean to be asking Christians that quesiton, right?

The bible is a collection of stories by primative people to explain natural occurrences in a world before science.

Much like how people of Greece and Rome made gods to be responsible for why the harvest died.

I've read the bible. I actually keep a copy of it on my book shelf to whip out in an argument.

(My favorite argument is "if Adam and eve were the first people how did their sons marry wives from the land of Nod, where did these women come from? Did they marry aliens?)

You question should be in the converse. How can so many people be fooled by such a document with no absolute truth to back it up. Have to think about some of the stories. A talking snake? Eve made out a rib? Cain and Abel wives? A boat with the largest zoo ever on it? Losing strength because hair was cut? Turing into a pillar of salt at the sight of an explosion? Parting the red sea, food from the sky? Just a few examples.

I've studied it extensively. There is little I'd call history there. The context around it perhaps is history, but relying on the bible for a history of the people leaves much to be desired.

Are you talking about "truths" or "universal principals". Don't doubt it has a lot of the latter mixed in with the crazy stuff, but the bible isn't the only source of universal prinicipals, and you hear so much of the crazy stuff all the time to understand that it's probably not the best source.

The bible's credibility is down the toilet. There is so much in it which IS absolutely false/contradictory/absurd, why should anyone who has come to such a realization bother trying to cull from it what little truth there may be. And once you dismiss the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc...there's a whole of Philosophy, Literature, and actually reputable History, to explore. Why waste time giving the Bible some unearned exalted status amongst all the other potential sources of truth? And don't even get me started on Christ!

have you read and dug deep with the Book of Mornon, Scientology or any other books put forth as The Way?

The bible was written by men, for the benefit of men.
The history of it is more interesting to me than what's contained in it.
Every translation, every time it was copied, it was altered to reflect the beliefs and agendas
of whomever was financing the translation or copying.
The people weren't even "allowed" to know what was in it for centuries.
The catholic church kept the contents secret for hundreds of years, and only
allowed their representatives to disseminate certain parts of it to the people.
After the invention of the printing press, it was a crime punishable by death, to
copy the bible and distribute it among the people.
When the King James version was written, every reference to "woman as prophet" was
changed to "woman as servant".
I think what truly appalls me, even more than just the belief that the bible is the "word of god", is the complete ignorance of the book's actual history.
These believers have no knowledge of the history of their "holy" book, or their religions.\
It is in no way a history book. Granted, some factual events have been included, but I really think that was just calculated to make it appear more credible. It's not a reference
book, that's for damned sure.

Going to SDA schools for 11 years, we were taught the bible from a historical and moral perspective; Ancient Hebrew History was what it was called. So now, I have reference points for any discussions or questions of biblical origin, primarily useful for game shows (Jeopardy), and crossword puzzles.

As for the moral lessons, what I mainly learned was humility and the lesson of the Good Samaritan, i.e., treat your neighbor well, and be charitable and kind. But, learning to be a good person derived directly from my parents/family.

I guess my question is: why do you assume people did not read it?

No different than any other issues, or ideas that many make firm judgements about without knowing much of anything about them ...

What ? People should use their brains !?

You are entitled to your own views. How do you know who has done research or visited the holy sites ? I'd worry about your own beliefs not others.

As a child I was indoctrinated to believe that the catholic faith had the only real truth, further that those who didn't believe in it were all wrong.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't know of any religion that is not based hearsay and myth. Is there any religion that accepts science, reason and free enquiery as a guidline to follow? If so that makes all religions false in the same way.

Its not about being certain for me personally. I don't claim to be certain about anything. Instead I say that any evidence I have been presented with, claiming there is a god, has failed to stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

Also, whilst I imagine it could be quite interesting to study the bible, the idea that you cannot care about the truth without studying the bible is something that I disagree with. I would say you are better off reading about the evidence (falsifyable eidence) that gives us the best idea of the way our universe works. This leads to a naturalistic, godless universe anyway.

Also the idea that if you say, 'well I don't know exactly how we all got here' means that you have to subscibe to the thinking that 'well, as long as you don't have every detail, I will believe in my god, because it explains exactly how we got here'. This is not rational for me.

Lastly, why the bible, and not all the other religious text? Personally I happy saying that if there is evidence out there for something beyond our natural universe, then let me take look. I doubt very much that the evidence would stand up to any sort of ridicule, but if you care about the truth (and not what you want the truth to be) you should go out of your way to listen to the arguments/evidence. Studying the bible in full is not necessary for me, as you can already dismiss things adam and eve, noah's ark, and living inside a whale, just by looking at scientific evidence.

The question is what do you mean by "truth"? You can look for moral truths and so on, but as far as I'm concerned truth in the bible should mean historical truth. And the bible is peddled by Christians for its history, especially about the historical and mythological person they call Christ. But it's not a book of history, it's a book of fables.