Test Your Knowledge of the Bible

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 03:30 PM

Are they really "verifiable"? I am not so sure. How much external verification is there for Moses? Or even for the big guy, himself, Jesus Christ?

I don't think that reason we accept the Ten Commandments, for instance, has to do with a real guy named Moses. If that was the case, if someone showed that there was no historical Moses, then Stealing, Murder, Adultery, Idolatry, and Bearing False witness would all be OK again. None of us wants that;-)

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 13 - 03:30 PM

Pete, there are a number of actual historical people mentioned in the Bible. Several Roman emperors during and after the appearance of Jesus. Several of the disciples. Herod.

But other than the Bible, where is the evidence for the existence of Moses? Aaron? Abraham? Ezekiel and his wheel (UFO?)? Jacob and his ladder? Daniel and the den full of lions?

Or, for that matter, an actual living, breathing Adam and Eve?

Where is the Garden of Eden? The Tower of Babel? Any independent archeological evidence?

The Sinai Desert, where Moses and the Israelites are said to have wandered for forty years, shows no archeological evidence for a large group of people wandering around during the alleged period in history when they can find evidence in relatively sheltered areas of 6,000 year old shepherds campfires here and there. But no large groups of people.

Also, recent evidence has shown that the ancient Egyptians, contrary to previous beliefs, did NOT keep slaves. They considered maintaining large numbers of slaves to be economically unfeasible. Believe it or not! (That surprise me, too!)

Sorry. Only in the most diaphanous way can the Bible be considered to be any kind of reliable history, beyond what a folklorist might be able to glean from it.

Note: I seriously question the strength of the religious faith of someone who has to have concrete evidence to support that faith. That's not faith at all!

Most religion, and that includes Christianity, is based on legend, metaphor, myth, and folklore, all of which as meaning in and of itself. Read a bit of Joseph CampbelL.

This does not mean the the tenets being taught are not true. But consider the case of Doubting Thomas, who would not believe unless he had concrete evidence. That is NOT faith!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 09:12 AM

""verifiable historical data-eg dates,chronogeanologies,""

You had better hope, Pete, that these all do appear in the other books, because if they don't, then the only verification of the bible IS the bible.

And, even if they do appear in the other books, that only verifies the existance of a common source.

So you are rather out on a limb, chopping between you and the trunk.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 02:24 PM

don t - methinks you missed my point.eg if book of mormon cites various locations and yet well funded efforts no evidence is unearthed,it seems reasonable to dismiss it.the bible does record locations that have been unearthed and therefore has more to validate its truthfulness.

don firth - there are things to be discovered yet but much that has previously been dismissed by critics has been subsequently shown as historical fact ,hittites ,pilate off the top of my head.i dont accept that faith means believing what you know is not true, and an out of context ref to thomas does not validate that idea.my point is not that every character in the bible can be proven but that the narrative sections are set in historical context.
of course as a believer in the bible ,i say egypt did have slaves but i am not afraid to see your evidence to the contrary if you care to supply it.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 03:54 PM

Most of the "Holy Books" of the world are written within true historical and cultural contexts. Otherwise, they just wouldn't make any sense. But they are spiritual books, and meant to be viewed through the eyes of spirituality. Any attempt to "prove" the historicity of such books is barking up the wrong tree.
On the other hand, there is much to be learned from the historical context of these writings - and these sacred writings will be far better understood when their historical context is known.
I think that a major purpose of most religions, is to appreciate the sacredness and wonder of that which surrounds us. If we can look on our earth and our lives and our loves in awe and a feeling of sacredness, perhaps we will do a better job of protecting them.
The mythology and stories that express religious faith is not so important for its "facts" - it's the messages they teach that have importance.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 07:33 PM

Pete, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. I did not say that "faith means believing what you know is not true." Faith means believing in something for which you have no verifiable evidence. Those are two different things. If you say that you have faith in something for which there IS verifiable evidence, that is not really "faith," that's knowledge.

Those who wrote the scrolls and parchment or papyrus manuscripts that were later assembled into what we now call "the Bible" were often writing of events that they, themselves, did not experience or witness, but had been told. In essence, folklore.

As to the ancient Egyptians keeping slaves, here are two web sites with some most fascination information about them. Including their use of the word "slave," which included servants who were free to come and go on their own time, and the same word was applied to what later civilizations called "serfs" or "peasants."

CLICKY #1.

CLICKY #2

They did keep slaves, but not in the large numbers previous assumed. They were usually prisoners of war.

An interesting note in another web site about a large number of Hebrew slaves says, "Here the historical record is based on the Old Testament and not on Egyptian records."

Don Firth

P. S. I might mention that the pastor of the church I attend once held up a copy of the Bible and said, "This is NOT 'The Boy Scout Manual!' It is not a book of answers. It is a book of questions!"

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 12 Mar 13 - 08:35 PM

I got 14 of 15 on the quiz for 93% and I would call myself agnostic. Sometimes an open mind is an advantage over one that allowed their beliefs to be brainwashed!

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 04:23 PM

don firth,-point taken i may have read more into what you said about faith.but to give an example by way of clarification:-we cannot prove the existence of many historical figures outside of written accounts,sometimes written years after said figures lives, but it is reasonable to accept them.christians consider that they have a reasonable faith on the testimony of the biblical writers.sceptics reject these accounts because they have a purely naturalistic worldview.
thankyou for the clickys.i read most of the material.i note that egyptians did keep slaves[sometimes large numbers]contrary to your origial mention,though i notice that your last post qualified the previous one.and in fairness it was a long article.
.."a book of questions.."care to elucidate?
pilate asked "what is truth".if only we knew if that was mocking,wistful,or searching and sincere.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Mar 13 - 10:14 PM

Pete, while pondering your question and trying to frame the answer that Pastor Shannon Anderson would have given, I ran across this web site. This provides an answer that I'm sure Pastor Anderson would approved of, and says it far better that I could.

CLICKY.

I know absolutely nothing about Rachel Held Evans, but I do have to agree with what she says in the following:

The Bible is meant to be a conversation-starter, not a conversation-ender.

One reason I think the Bible is such a powerful conversation-starter is that it asks the questions that are most important to humanity without providing neat and tidy answers in response. Instead, it speaks to us through poetry, proverbs, letters, laws, prophecies, philosophy, history, traditions, and stories. God chose not to communicate in bullet points, and I believe it's because he wants to draw us into conversation with Himself and with one another.

As I was thinking about this, I jotted down some of the Bible's most intriguing questions—posed by both God and his creation:

"Did God really say you should not eat from the tree?"
"Who told you that you were naked?"
"Why did you kill your brother? Did you think you could hide your sin from me forever?"
"If I can find but ten righteous men will you spare the city?"
"Who should I say has sent me?"
"Who do you say that I am?"
"An excellent wife who can find?"
"What do people gain from all their labors under the sun?"
"How long will you forget me, O Lord? Will you hide your face from me forever?"
"Who is the greatest in the kingdom?"
"What shall we say the kingdom is like?"
"What do I lack?"
"What is truth?"
"Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?"
"Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani? - My God, My God. Why have you forsaken me?"

I was struck especially by that last one, as it was uttered first by David and then repeated by Jesus, revealing something of the degree to which Christ enveloped himself wholly in the experience of humanity. We do such an injustice to the complexity and power of these questions when we reduce the Bible to an answer book.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Mar 13 - 01:13 PM

dont disagree with most of that don.if that clarifies what you meant we have some agreement.however to deny that the bible does contain answers to questions is only true if you deny it,s divine authority.
take for example the age of the earth.if we ask how old it is a study of the bible answers appx 6000 yrs.you of course dont believe it is inspired by God so you believe darwinism.it is nice to have a civil disagreement though!! pete.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Mar 13 - 03:06 PM

Well, on matters of scientifically proven fact, such as the age of the earth, and matters of evolution, there, Pete, I'm afraid we part company—as do all reasonable, thinking Christians who have not been bamboozled by short-sighted, closed minded fundamentalist beliefs.

Here, for example, is a quote from Richard L. Deem. Deem is an evangelical Christian, and no one who has read his works can reasonable doubt his faith. But he is a thinking Christian, not one who simply accepts what he is told, no matter how far-fetched in relation to observable and verifiable data. He also seems to be aware that most of the supposedly historical data in the Bible is built on allegory and metaphor, not on literal historical fact.

As indicated earlier, the Bible does not fix the age of the earth, contrary to the claims of Answers in Genesis. Historically, their claim comes from the work of James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, from 1625 to 1656. Archbishop Ussher took the genealogies of Genesis, assuming they were complete, and calculated all the years to arrive at a date for the creation of the earth on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. Of course, even assuming the method was valid, such an exact date is not possible from the genealogies of the Bible (Ussher assumed all the years the patriarchs lived were exactly 365.25 days long and that they all died the day before their next birthday). There are a number of other assumptions implicit in the calculation. The first, and foremost, assumption is that the genealogies of Genesis are complete, from father to son throughout the entire course of human existence. The second assumption is that the Genesis creation "days" were exactly 24-hours in length. It turns out that both assumptions are false.

To ignore the wonders of science and the immenseness of the Cosmos, including the fact that the sun, the earth we live on, and all the planets in the solar system came into being some 4.5 billion years ago, not a minuscule 6,000 years ago; and that man was sculpted from mud from a river bank in a place called the Garden of Eden instead of gradually evolving from one-celled creatures to more complicated forms, finally to emerge as thinking, (hopefully) intelligent beings such as humans—is to reduce an omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal Deity, capable of starting such a long-term process, knowing in advance what the results would be, to the puny status of a mere Wizard.

Ask yourself:   is it not possible that God is far wiser, more knowledgeable, and more all-powerful than my puny mind is capable of conceiving?

If God created the entire Universe, would He not make use of the very laws of nature that He, Himself, created to make a particular planet and a particular species? Or do you seriously believe that He would simply wave a magic wand?

Learn to question. It's not a sin, it's a virtue.

Don Firth

P. S. I find no contradictions between known science and the Bible--IF one reads the Bible for what it is: an anthology of religious and philosophical writings, containing religious myths, metaphors, allegories, and, yes, folklore, from which much wisdom may be drawn IF read intelligently and thoughtfully.

To call something a "myth" does not mean the it is untrue. It means that it may very well contain a greater truth than the events it purports to describe. To allow oneself to be bogged down with the minor details of the style in which the story is told is to miss the whole point of the story.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 18 Mar 13 - 11:33 AM

is it not possible that God is far wiser, more knowledgeable, and more all-powerful than my puny mind is capable of conceiving?

As it was human minds not so very dissimilar from yours that conceived of God in the first place, I'd have to say not.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 13 - 01:21 PM

pete- Don Firth's explanations and links, when fully explored, show that much confusion and disagreement about the bible and its construction and historical accuracy come from the many, many errors in translation from ancient texts as scholars (some with political agendas) tried to make sense of languages that hadn't been commonly spoken in a thousand years or more.
Of course there are references to actual places and persons in the Bible, and it may well be that the basic persona of Jesus, as described, was based on some actual prophet/teacher/rabble-rouser! But NONE of the 4 gospels which tell his story was written by anyone who was there at the time or who knew any character named Jesus personally. They did not keep accurate records in Jerusalem or Bethlehem in those times. People told stories about events, and like all events, the stories which were mot interesting got repeated and embroidered.... and at some point, the best stories began to be accepted as fact and used to form alliances to promote 'causes'.
   Thus, the biblical stories arrived in Rome and were told in the pidgin Greek spoken in the dockyards, inspiring many of the poor and providing a base for a grass-roots movement to compete with the current religion of Mithras.

If you read all that link on Mithras, it is easy to see that the Christian stories were more 'comfortable' and personal and promising than Mithras, and fortunately for them, Emperor Constantine eventually thought so too!

So, Pete, while one can easily find references to actual people and locations mentioned in the Bible, there is no reason to assume that all names and events mentions were authentic....or that all the metaphysical concepts attributed to them were factual. (Think about it-someone says that someone else named Moses went up a mountain (alone), had a talk with God, and came down with stone tablets with rules carved on them.... and everyone just nodded and believed this!)

As Don F. notes, there were so many writings left out of the Bible because they were either lost for awhile, or just not 'agreeable' to the compilers and translators.

When a traffic accident happens, it is hard to get a clear account from actual eyewitnesses, so Biblical stories written down by those who were not witnesses are even harder to authenticate..... and that's why the word 'believe' is used in religious discussions.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Mar 13 - 01:36 PM

Blandiver, I am imaginative enough to conceive of a being whose power, knowledge, and intelligence far exceed my own.

But this does not mean that I necessarily believe in the existence of such a being.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 19 Mar 13 - 09:37 AM

The obvious point, Pete(and the one that Blandiver is hinting at), is that human beings are the ones that gave the Bible "Divine Authority". In fact, the idea of "Divine Authority", just something that a person came up with, probably because he couldn't get people to pay attention any other way.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Mar 13 - 03:52 PM

don- your quote from the compromising mr deem is typical of many who try to marry darwin with bible,as is your assertion that evolution is a proven fact.
i did not say that ussher was exactly spot on,but even if you threw a few more generations into the biblical data you still only have thousands [if you really stretch it ] yrs of humanity . i can also provide ref to hebrew scholars that affirm that day [heb=yom] in gen 1 means exactly as traditionally believed.
mr deem gives more credance to darwin than Gods word but tries to dress it up IMO.YOU,YOURSELF as a liberal christian are more honest - you just dont believe the bible in its historical grammatical meaning as accepted in most of church history.scripture does answer the question of origins and many scientists also believe that-
"only belief in Jesus Christ can open our eyes and give us the correct view of the world.before i was a christian,i never felt really content with the evolutionary world view,which i had adopted.it produced too many contradictions and left open too many questions.only the truth in the word of God is able to give a full comprehensive answer to our basic questions of life and death"
dr markus blietz.astrophysicist

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 09:32 AM

Joe Offer mentioned Jonathan Edwards sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" .
Well, Jonathan maybe the greatest triple-jumper in history but I thought that he rejected religion and was now a confirmed(!)atheist!

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 12:51 PM

wrong edwards and wrong generation though the runner is on the wrong track maybe!
i suspect you were also attempting a little humour!

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 03:15 PM

We have a little daily thingy, printed here locally, titled "Good News Newsletter". Just a few ads, community events, trivia questions, and "inspirational" thoughts and quotes. I'm gonna toss in yesterday's "Thought of the Day", and resist further comment, at least for the moment.

"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought."

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 06:36 PM

Bill, I'm not sure I would agree with your statement about "translation errors." It seems to imply that there is a "correct" way to translate the Bible - which, indeed, might be the contention of literalists. For centuries, many groups believed that the King James (Authorised) Version was the only "correct" translation, and some said that the translation itself was divinely inspired. Certainly, there are errors in any translation, but I don't see that as the crux of the issue.

I think I'd prefer to say that there are a number of ways to translate any document. Some translations are better than others, but "better" is a relative term. Different translations follow different philosophies of translation. Some are more literal (literal equivalence), and some more closely tied to the meaning of the original text (dynamic equivalence). That's a basic difference between translations, whether they should be word-for-word or thought-for-thought translations. A translation meant for oral proclamation might strive for a more literary form of English, than a text meant for reading or study might need. As one who teaches bible study, I can't get by with fewer than about twenty translations, although I mostly use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) for teaching, the Good News Version for casual reading, and the New American Bible for Catholic stuff since it's the standard bible for American Catholics. My favorite is the NRSV. We used the RSV as a teacher-approved aid in Greek class, and it was very close to the Greek text of the New Testament.
Conservative Christians have gradually abandoned the King James Version. The most popular bible among conservative/evangelical Christians in the U.S. is the New International Version (NIV), and it's a very good translation.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Mar 13 - 07:42 PM

I had a seminary prof, a real good dude, who worked on the NIV.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 06:58 AM

good post joe.something that i noticed when i did a very basic gk course a few yr ago was that the king james did seem to follow the order of words in NT gk text.i suppose that gave it a certain advantage in being more memorable.it seems to me that most people that can quote it more extensively are those raised on it.admittedly that may not always be in context .but there did used to be more of an emphasis -it seems to me - to read all the bible,in order to imbibe "the whole counsel of God"
one catholic version i like for passage reading is the jerusalem bible.i use the ESV frequently but otherwise i,m mainly still king james.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 07:45 AM

There are close to a hundred English translations of The Bible. If ya keep reading you'll eventually find one that agrees with you.

Subject: RE: Test Your Knowledge of the Bible
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Mar 13 - 07:50 AM

frogprince,

"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled sea of thought."

Great quote!

Where's the 'like' button on here?


I got 14/15 on the quiz - not the American writer one, never heard of him or q concept