The bible is. . . - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

SMadsen · #61 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

Amusingly enough, I know Christians who do the same sort of thing to Atheists. I guess no matter what you believe, nothing quite says "fun" like doing a lot of research yourself and then using it to humiliate and confuse someone who has different beliefs and opinions then you because they haven't done as much research.

Are you somehow equating beliefs and opinions with research?

Dilettante · #62 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Are you somehow equating beliefs and opinions with research?

Are you suggesting that everyone who does research will have the same beliefs and opinions about what their findings mean?

hairballxavier · #63 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

Having studied the origins of the bible vigorously, I can quite assure you this is not god's word.

Well then whose word is it?

And what inspired them to say it.

Non Sequitur · #64 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

Have you ran this thesis past any Jews? Especially the part about the OT being nothing more than a base upon which the Gospels are built?

have i personally? no. Has the subject been of long debate for the last 2000 years and was the first century church struggling to answer these same questions? yes. The Jews are Jews because they don't believe in the Gospels so this belief doesn't apply to them. I'm a Christian because i happen to believe in the Gospels.

Non Sequitur · #65 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

in addition to that I don't think the Jews are running the Talmud by us Christians

Andrewl · #66 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

What sort of archaeological and historical evidence are you talking about? I can imagine three kinds:

1) Existing ancient manuscripts (not originals, obviously, but very early copies). That would let us know the status of that text back to the date of those documents.

2) Documents from at or near the time of the original that either mention the same or similar events or that refer to the author or work in question.

3) Archaeological finds (ruins, artifacts, ect) could be used to verify that certain details of a work were accurate.

Now I would wager that the New Testement has more ancient MMS containing a part or all of its text then just about any other ancient work from that period or before.

Various other sources from that time or shortly after mention the writings and attribute them to specific authors, and naturally numerous characters from the New Testement are mentioned time and again in other works.

To my knowledge, the locations of cities, towns, provinces ect and the details of these places mentioned in the NT agree with our archaeological findings.

None of this, naturally, proves that the documents of the NT are accurrate accounts. But if we held them to the same standard as most works from that period, we would admit that there was some reason to suspect they were written by the people they're attributed to.

I'd have to dig up my notes on your specific examples, but let me ask you this: what is the oldest extant MSS of Plato's Republic or Thucydides history? How large a gap exists between the supposed time of the original and that MSS?
I will tenatively wager that (at the every least one text from) the New Testment will have an older extant MSS dated closer to the supposed date of the original.

Well, that claim is naturally not something from the field of archaeology or history.

I think we got off on separate tracks somehow.

I agree that obviously the bible was written by men and this is probably evident in the archaeological and historical record. I have never studied how the bible came to be, im sure it is fascinating though. (i cant search for M. Twain's posts on this).

The point i wanted to make is that there are much better books about human knowledge and morals that predate christianity, and there in no divine claims to their authorship, we can only point to mortal man for their creation. (incidentally this is something humanity should take far more pride in than the bible).

Christianity claims that god wrote the bible (without any evidence), and i find that funny, since it is hardly an impressive piece of work compared to the annals of human literature.

Andrew

Andrewl · #67 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Well then whose word is it?

And what inspired them to say it.

The same thing that inspired the writers of any story.

Andrew

Non Sequitur · #68 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Christianity claims that god wrote the bible (without any evidence), and i find that funny, since it is hardly an impressive piece of work compared to the annals of human literature.

Andrew

This isn't true. Not even a majority of Christians claim this. We claim that God inspired, not wrote. It took centuries to be put together and clearly humans wrote each of the individual books of the Bible.

Andrewl · #69 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

This isn't true. Not even a majority of Christians claim this. We claim that God inspired, not wrote. It took centuries to be put together and clearly humans wrote each of the individual books of the Bible.

I don't see the difference.

Christians believe that the bible says something undeniably true about the universe. And this is so because it was either written by god or inspired by god. Right?

Where is the evidence for this claim?

Andrew

Non Sequitur · #70 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I don't see the difference.

Christians believe that the bible says something undeniably true about the universe. And this is so because it was either written by god or inspired by god. Right?

Where is the evidence for this claim?

Andrew

Ah if your looking for evidence there is none. I'll say that straight off. It's called faith. I can't convince you of that, no one can.

There is a big difference though in saying "God wrote the Bible" and "God (really the Holy Spirit but thats a different issue) inspired the Bible." Saying God wrote the Bible leads us to all sorts of problems with the inaccuracies you challenge Christians on all the time. Saying it was inspired leaves room for some things to be put in there by man. God inspired man with the theological truths of the Bible, but left man (or woman i don't actually know) to pick up the pen and choose the words.

Andrewl · #71 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

Ah if your looking for evidence there is none. I'll say that straight off. It's called faith. I can't convince you of that, no one can.

There is a big difference though in saying "God wrote the Bible" and "God (really the Holy Spirit but thats a different issue) inspired the Bible." Saying God wrote the Bible leads us to all sorts of problems with the inaccuracies you challenge Christians on all the time. Saying it was inspired leaves room for some things to be put in there by man. God inspired man with the theological truths of the Bible, but left man (or woman i don't actually know) to pick up the pen and choose the words.

But why would someone have faith in something without evidence of its truth... that can't be good for society.

But if god inspired or wrote the bible, either way, the faithful are expected to think that it says something true. How could god inspire inaccuracies? How could god inspire violence against children? How could god inspire slavery and hatred of women?

And without evidence for those truths, isn't it kind of scary that people choose to have faith in them?

Andrew

Non Sequitur · #72 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

[quote=Andrewl;947584]But why would someone have faith in something without evidence of its truth... that can't be good for society.

But if god inspired or wrote the bible,%

Andrewl · #73 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

Of course it can. there are all sorts of things that we have faith in that we can't prove exists. Can you prove love exists?

Yes. What we call 'love' is associated with physiological responses. It has been proven over and over again by countless teenagers with 'butterflies' in their stomachs and the the unbearable sadness of those who have lost 'loved' ones. How could anybody deny that the emotion we call love 'exists', there is evidence for it.

Quote:

you prove hope exists? I have yet to find any empirical evidence for either of those feelings, but i know that i have them. And there is lots of other "evidence" its just personal. I feel a connection with God. He is a personal force in my life. I can't prove it, and i certainly cant convince you to have one yourself.

See with love and hope you are talking about human emotion, of which there is oodles of empirical evidence. Our words to describe these physical/empirical emotions are numerous in different languages, it matters not what we choose to call them, its the underlying emotion that is important and for which there is overwhelming physical evidence for their existence.

With god you are talking about a personal existent being who created humans for a purpose recorded in the bible, of which there is no evidence. You must see the difference... see this is not just emotion, this is an unsubstantiated claim to knowledge about the universe.

Quote:

As for God inspiring the inaccuracies, he didn't, people put those in. God inspired every theological truth, but he didn't take over Moses' body and write every physical word in Leviticus. You are holding that because one part of the Bible is a little off than the whole book is wrong. It doesn't have to be that way. Its not One book, its a collection of many books collected in one volume

How does one pick and choose what was inspired by god in the bible and what was not?

Americans used to point to the bible as justification for slavery, now they don't. What gives, did god inspire slavery only at one time in history and then in the present day he no longer inspires it, it is now considered a human fallacy inserted in the bible, but 100 years ago it was the word of god?

Andrew

Josepha · #74 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diuretic

So Christianity is connected to imperialism and Judaism is connected only to those who are born within it? That could reflect the missionary zeal of Christianity and the reluctance in Judaism to accept would-be converts unless they can prove their commitment.

Or am I very wrong?

Your assumption is that there is a direct percieved benefit to being in either group. In Christianity the promise is a personal salvation and heaven through the grace of Christ. Redemption. Sins forgiven. Direct benefit.

There is no benefit to being Jewish - no belief in personal salvation. Salvation is the salvation of the creation. This is the only life that matters because it's the only one we are currently aware of. If kabballah and reincarnation are true - then Kabbalah can be a roadmap for anyone interested, regardless of their tribe or faith.

There are rules that Jews follow - and there are many variations along with some squabbling. Defining Jew is actually hard - is it someone who practices the religion? Born in the religion? The baptized child of Jewish parents? The adopted child of Jewish parents? Anyone who wants to be one? All of the above?

Since there really is no benefit - Jews don't believe in 'saved' let alone that they're more 'saved' for being Jewish - and a whole bunch of special rules to follow (as well as regular ass-kickings) - it's more that Jews can't figure out why people would want to convert. I think that's why Jews are regarded as not wanting converts.

There is an old Jewish joke about an elderly hassid who sits next to a black man at the bus stopp, and sees that the black man is reading a Yiddish paper. Her reaches over, taps theman on the shoulder and asks 'Nu? Isn't schvartze enough?"

(Translation - NU;what's going on - schvaze: dark-skinned)

Josepha · #75 (**permalink**) 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

in addition to that I don't think the Jews are running the Talmud by us Christians

Uhmm - and that means?

His point is that your Old Testament has been someone' holy writ since thousands of years before your religion began. When you make pronouncements on someone else's holy book, you are sometimes asked if you've talked to one of them.

Perhaps they're not running the Talmud by you because they know you'll try to steal it, too?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode