[flash=200,200][/flash]Wait! Don't answer that question too quickly. If you do, you'll likely judge the Bible's veracity by categories established 1,500 years after it was written. Perhaps I should explain.

Disillusioned by the religious fervor that fed the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), the early architects of what would later be called the Enlightenment demanded that all claims about the natural world be verified by the exercise of human reason rather than dogmatic pronouncement. In doing so, they distinguished between values (things one may believe but can't prove) and facts (things one can, and therefore should, prove). For these early modernists, both values and facts represented truth claims, but each of a different order. Over time, however, rationally verified facts -- and the scientific method to which they led -- became so productive and influential that it wasn't all that long until notions of truth became associated almost exclusively with facts.

This preference for facts over values created a crisis for many religious traditions during the 19th and early 20th centuries as biblical scholars, embracing the rational-critical methods of scientific, historical and archeological study, realized that many of the descriptions and claims of the Bible did not withstand critical scrutiny. The sun, as it turned out, did not revolve around the earth, and the world was not created in seven days. Moreover, it became apparent that not only did the Bible provide unreliable historical and scientific information but the biblical writers also often contradicted each other. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, for instance, Jesus drives the money changers from the Temple in Jerusalem shortly before his crucifixion and dies on Passover. In contrast, according to John, Jesus clears the Temple at the beginning of his ministry and is crucified on the day before Passover.

The dubious nature of biblical "history" and "science" and the multiple discrepancies among the four evangelists led to a great schism in Christianity, each side assuming that truth is equated unequivocally with facts. On the liberal side of the divide, scholars concluded that because the Bible was not factually accurate it was in a profound sense not true. Witness, for instance, Bart Ehrman's recent post on who wrote the Bible (and, for that matter, his entire literary career). Conservatives, on the other hand, asserting that the Bible was obviously true, concluded that it therefore must be factually accurate. Hence, they have written tomes that rival the Bible itself in length that engage in intellectual gymnastics in order to iron out all the "so-called" discrepancies in Scripture.

Both sides, however, miss the literary nature and intent of the Bible as stated within its own pages. Take for example Luke, who in his introduction acknowledges that he is not an eye-witness to the events he recounts but depends on multiple other stories about Jesus. He writes what he calls "an orderly account" so that his audience may believe and trust the teaching they have received (Luke 1:1-4). Or consider John, who near the end of his gospel comes clean about carefully arranging stories of Jesus so as to persuade his readers that Jesus is the messiah (John 20:30-31). The gospels -- and, indeed, all of Scripture -- do not seek to prove but to persuade. And so John, convinced that Jesus is "the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" (1:29), portrays Jesus as clearing the Temple of money changers at the very outset of his ministry because he, himself, is God's sacrifice. Similarly, Jesus dies on the Day of Preparation at the exact moment the Passover lambs are slaughtered. John's aim is thoroughly theological, not historical.

For this reason, the Bible is filled with testimony, witness, confession and even propaganda. Does it contain some reliable historical information? Of that there is little doubt. Yet, whenever we stumble upon "verifiable facts" -- a notion largely foreign to ancient writers -- we should keep in mind that the biblical authors deployed them not to make a logical argument but rather to persuade their audiences of a larger "truth" that cannot be proved in a laboratory but is finally accepted or not accepted based on its ability to offer a compelling story about the meaning and purpose of the world, God, humanity and everything in between. To attempt to determine whether the Bible is "true" based only on its factual accuracy is therefore to make a profound category mistake, judging its contents by standards its authors were neither cognizant of nor interested in.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/is-the-bible-true_b_841949.html
What do you guys think,

My statement
The Bible was also a tool that was carved out from the Book of the Dead, and used by the White man to confuse Black man, into slavery and colonaism,

You can verify why its the Best kept secrect and best seller, KJV, King James Vesion, re written by King james of England and adultrated, from time to time with lies, and that is why the Bible is so contradicting,

Carved from http://www.truthbeknown.com/bible.htm

No, it is not. It is a rehash of older myths from around the world. The Bible is not the 'word of God,' but borrowed from pagan sources.
Yes, indeed, people have been following the Bible like a blueprint. This statement is testimony to the fact that it is NOT fulfillment of prophecy. Again, the book has been forced upon billions worldwide both through violence and brainwashing. Naturally it would have an impact.

The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups, and world domination. - John Hartung

Joagbaje:

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

An example of circular reasoning!! Quoting from the bible to prove that the bible is true!!

@poweredcom, whosoever argue with you is also brutish like you! I pray that you know the TRUTH and for the TRUTH to set u free from this heavy bondage of lack of wisdom that u are in, before it is too late for you!

GBENGA_bonetalk:

@poweredcom, whosoever argue with you is also brutish like you! I pray that you know the TRUTH and for the TRUTH to set u free from this heavy bondage of lack of wisdom that u are in, before it is too late for you!

Shut up, black/African fool, The bible is a fraud.

Now to prove that the bible is not a mere theological,historical,write up but a book written according to d direction of d holy spirit,making d book spiritual,i wil tell u dis story:there is a pastor he was travelling one day when his car caught fire,everythin in d car got burnt except a bible at d back of car,proving dt der is sometin special about the bible and d fact stand dt it is d word of God sent to direct christians path till he comes back,like the verse the guy who prove this with human knowledge quote(john 20:30-31)it was because of people like u who existed dt period,dt make them write dt way so u can believe.the bible is not a fraud though their are people rewritting it their own way and they will be judge according to(reve,22:18,19)but pls watch ur tongue,it is very dangerous to kick against the prick?watch what u say after reading too much book.and for the contradiction of the book of gospel,the way we view things are different,and we pay attention in diff.ways,or why do u think dey put the 4,so u can view it from diff. Opinion and make the best out of everything.GOD is not a author of confussion.THE BIBLE IS REAL FOR THE WISE!

@jpworld

Shut up, black/African fool, The bible is a fraud.

Pls no racism talk here plsss, bro,

One of the greatest MIRACLE of the BIBLE is the continual EXISTENCE still of the children of Israel whom readily identify with their origin and culture. Questioning the authenticity of the Bible is a mirage. Why? Before recent archaeological findings, the Old Testament has always been the subject to being called a made up story. The question is by whom and for whom were the story made up? With archaeological findings shattering the various unfounded accusations at the Bible, many have resulted into the next phrase, attacking the New Testament. Many would say that Jesus even never existed, while some would say he was just an average dude who got "God-di-fied" by his followers. The question is for what reasons? Can you question the New Testament without questioning the Old Testament?

Considering that their are several intellects on Nairaland not in agreement with the Bible and who frown at Christians who quote from the Bible to answer their questions, lets walk on your thread by tapping into our objective reasoning. WHY?: We need to question the foundation and objectives on which the Bible stands and was written upon.

Its not too irrational to think that Bible was made up so as to bring the unknowing under control. To make a Naive submissive and subsequently bring under control the entire world. However, Judaism is about the most strict culture to convert to. In fact, its so much a close, restricted religion that the Israeli government is actively involved in conversion to Judaism. This shatters the subjective claim. If they had primarily been interested in subjecting the world to their rule and ideas, they'd have made Judaism easy to get into but hard to get out of. Contrarily, Israelis don't preach conversion to Judaism and in the last three years alone, there's been more Jews returning to their homeland than any other country in the entire world. Why return to your homeland when you could easily integrate into other society, spread your beliefs and culture and bring into subordination by enforcing or persuading people of such adopted homelands. People even without common sense know that isolating oneself means you are not willing to meddle into other peoples business and don't want theirs in yours as well. The point is the Jewish people have something they don't want to share with the world. Its something that has held them together long before and even after their homeland was destroyed some 2,000 years ago by the Roman army.

Israel calling on Jewish people in diaspora to return home still does not answer why an Israeli, Moses, was inspired to pen the Book of Genesis. Through out all of history, the only battles Israel has fought as a nation is defending that little piece of land. There were written documents forecasting the destruction of Jerusalem 4 decades before the eventual Jew-Roman war in AD 70. This was not written in the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. As an historical fact, Israel had fallen as a country over 200 years before the council sat and there were two kinds of Jewish people at that time. The Jews that believed in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Jews that were still expecting a Messiah, a Son from the line of David, their once ancestral warrior king, that would finally reign from Jerusalem and bring back the Temple worship. The Council of Nicaea had in its attendance between 250 - 318 people and was held from the May 20th to July 25 AD 325. The council was about interpreting written text that were already on ground. The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered starting from 1946 shows that the whole of the Old Testament existed as a single unit hundreds of years before the Council of Nicaea and it contained no alterations from what was in the Bible before and after the Council of Nicaea.

Many students of battles in history during middle earth are stunned at how spoils were treated. Spoils included children, women and commodities. It would therefore be historically inaccurate for the Bible to not include stories of battles the Israelis engaged in without revealing how they were instructed to treat their spoils after victory. In order words, its the concept of war. Is it fair to incite the Bible as a complete instructions for genocide, when the reality of war even at any time of history includes ones of horror and heart breaking stories. Have you all read of the Bataan Death March that happened as recently as 1942 in the Philippines. The United States dropped bombs on Hiroshima, not flinching that kids were running around on the street playing soccer. When describing the war, historians would detail what went down. This does not make the details of war an instructional book for genocide. This therefore isn't the "WHY" the Bible was written.

In the last hundred years alone, believers of the Bible have been subjected to persecution than any other group of people in the world. The crusade, often pointed out as a kingdom filled with violence, was a counter attack on the spread and conquest of Muslims and Islam into Spain and Europe. The best form of defense is attack but yet again, that does not explain why the concept detailed in the Bible. The instruction to go war in the Old Testament was to take that piece of land only. It wasn't to conquer the world like Alexandria the Great or the Romans, or the Caliphates. it was to possess that little piece of land that had so meticulously been divided among the twelve tribes of Israel even before they set foot on the soil. WHY?

any questions and comments before we move on

Questioning The Bible By Objective Reasoning