The bible

[x_giva]

All the bible is, is the christian story of god.

 

 

 

umm... the bible is the Jewish lawbook.. the christian bible is a freely and deceptively adapted version (with added New Testament) of the Hebrew Bible (Torah).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the bible, the world is 6000 years old.

 

 

 

nope, according to the bible, the world is 5667 years old.

 

 

 

Yet, it is PROVEN the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Fossils, examinations of the earths crust say that the world is billions of years old.

 

 

 

The answer comes later.

 

 

 

Here is another point in which shows the world cannot be 6000 years old:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, explain to me how the light from the distant stars is here. How can we see anything in the universe past our own solar system. We simply wouldn't be able to, for light wouldn't have had enough time to travel this far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When G-d created light, he made it wherever, The bible did say that G-d created light, right? He didn't make light sources until day 4. So it must be that G-d made the light waves anywhere he wanted to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another point, is dinosaurs. The bible does in fact mention mythological beasts, whether it is talking about dinosaurs or not is irrelivent.

 

 

 

What's your point here? that the Bible mentions dinosaurs? I don't get it.

 

 

 

 

A biblical day(when god created the earth) may have a different meaning, timewise, than our 24 hour system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wouldn't make sense if they had big days, as the bible includes sentences such as "he travelled for X days" If in fact, the days back then were big enough to account for the billions of years this earth has been around for, in this 'X days' he would have been dead in the first day.

 

 

 

You missed the point, Einstein. When G-d created the world (not in the times of Abraham), as in the first 6 days, time was a surreal thing, nobody was there to perceive it. It makes more sense like this, that before G-d created man, animals lived for a very long period of time. Which fits into modern theories and junk, right?

 

 

 

Oh, and who's "he"?

 

 

 

Fossils are billions of 'today's years' old, but apparently the bible is 6000 years old. I explained above about the argument about different sized days cannot be true, so if you believe in the bible, you cannot believe in dinosaurs. Which have been proven, you might as well not believe in gravity.

 

 

 

There's no logic to your argument... the atoms decayed at the same rate, but what G-d counts as a year in Genesis 1 is longer than our years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, so you might ask: How is it 5667 years? Those elongated G-d days are still only counted as 1 human day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are other ways to reason it out, btw.

[warri0r45]

 

There's a reason why people such as yourself will never accept science and an old earth or evolution. "It's just a theory." If you go by that implication (that science just uses guesswork) then you are wrong, and, somewhat hypocritically, you cling to your beliefs when they are no more credible than science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what you believe is up to you. If you want to keep on assuming (and wrongly implying) that these things are "just a theory" then go ahead, thats your perogative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A theory is not yet proven using the scientific method. The Big Bang CAN not be proven using the Scientific Method, while Macroevolution HAS not been proven using the Scientific Method. They are both cut off at the first step, as neither has been observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really didn't expect anyone to take my post apart on a technicality. It was alluding to people of faith blocking thier ears with the defence that science is purely guesswork, which it is not. Even if a theory is not yet proven it does not mean that it is wrong, which creationists falsly assume. Thier mistake is that they try to use negative proof i.e. finding proof for thier claim by disproving another theory, which basically sais to me they have no proof for thier own claim (I think we can all maturely accept this at this stage, I'm referring to the existance of god here and his creation of the universe. The bible is not proof, by the way [that is, of course, if you want to debate within the realms of science]) so they try to rubbish the opposition.

[Sumpta]

Sorry if this is a completely useless post, but this discussion is really going around in circles...

[Celt23]

^ Ah, but it's fun. :)

[gonpost]

Sorry if this is a completely useless post, but this discussion is really going around in circles...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They will always go around in circles when one side refuses to see reason and when one or both sides go off topic all the time, or bring in "evidence" that is completely irrelevant and unsupported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, I had a post on page 12 that pretty well summed up this thread. One guy said my view was "interesting", and then they ignored me and went back to fighting. Well, I tried.

[x_giva]

 

 

 

I really didn't expect anyone to take my post apart on a technicality. It was alluding to people of faith blocking thier ears with the defence that science is purely guesswork, which it is not. Even if a theory is not yet proven it does not mean that it is wrong, which creationists falsly assume. Thier mistake is that they try to use negative proof i.e. finding proof for thier claim by disproving another theory, which basically sais to me they have no proof for thier own claim (I think we can all maturely accept this at this stage, I'm referring to the existance of god here and his creation of the universe. The bible is not proof, by the way [that is, of course, if you want to debate within the realms of science]) so they try to rubbish the opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not quite.. back when evolution was the big thing, a Jewish scholar wrote a book on how it couldfit in with the Torah. We (orthodox) Jews don't disbelieve in science, because theoretically, G-d could have created everything in the Big Bang, and he could have made the world so everything evolved. The one thing not possible is that everything happened by chance. Because noone is that lucky.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

A theory is not yet proven using the scientific method. The Big Bang CAN not be proven using the Scientific Method, while Macroevolution HAS not been proven using the Scientific Method. They are both cut off at the first step, as neither has been observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever heard of Abductive Reasoning?

[Rebdragon]

Sorry if this is a completely useless post, but this discussion is really going around in circles...

 

 

 

Don't they all :lol: ?

[Skully]

In MY opinion, the bible is just a fairytale story book made up for people who can't handle the true factors of life.

[TheLastTemplar]

In MY opinion, the bible is just a fairytale story book made up for people who can't handle the true factors of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..Coming from a person who has never studied theology? Or coming from someone who has studied it but has just rejected it?

[Satenza]

I can't see how anyone would take it as 100% word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time.

 

 

 

2. Gospels have been thrown out.

 

 

 

3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors.

 

 

 

4. It contradicts itself.

 

 

 

5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders.

 

 

 

6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it.

 

 

 

7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you put trust into something despite all of that. Is it even logical to do so?

[Astralinre]

1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time.

 

 

 

Proof?

 

 

 

2. Gospels have been thrown out.

 

 

 

The Gnostic gospels, the ones which were thrown out, were written 100-200 years after the ones which are in the Bible.

 

 

 

3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors.

 

 

 

Point?

 

 

 

4. It contradicts itself.

 

 

 

Quotes?

 

 

 

5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders.

 

 

 

Why must those be wrong for God to do?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a side note, the Biblical God is not "all-loving" in the sense that people tend to use it; that is, He does not love everyone or everything. God is love. Because love is His essence, and anything which goes against His character is wrong, He has every right to destroy anything which is contrary to love. Loving good and hating evil is in no way contrary to God's nature.

 

 

 

6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it.

 

 

 

I've never thought about it that way, and you may be right, but what would the problem with that view be if it were correct?

 

 

 

7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection.

 

 

 

When there's hundreds of eyewitnesses around who will read your account, somebody's going to make sure you get the facts right, even if you don't have divine inspiration.

[x_giva]

 

1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time.

 

 

 

Proof?

 

 

 

yeah, the christian bible, as I said, is a freely and deceptively adapted version of the Torah. The Torah, however, has not changed once since it was given to us.

 

 

 

 

2. Gospels have been thrown out.

 

 

 

The Gnostic gospels, the ones which were thrown out, were written 100-200 years after the ones which are in the Bible.

 

 

 

The Torah has never had anything "thrown out", the apochrypa we have is just commentary. Oh, and the Dead Sea Scrolls were written WAY after the Torah was.

 

 

 

 

3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors.

 

 

 

Point?

 

 

 

he's saying that the christian bible is self-contradicting. The Torah, however, never contradicts itself (there's a way to explain everything).

 

 

 

 

4. It contradicts itself.

 

 

 

Quotes?

I was reading a book once about contradictions in the New Testament. Try to list all of his disciples in every gospel (or whatever they are).

 

 

 

 

5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders.

 

 

 

Why must those be wrong for God to do?

 

 

 

um.. Astralinre's right, G-d is completely justified in killing sinners; he warned them (stinkin' gave them commandments [seven Noahide laws])

 

 

 

As a side note, the Biblical God is not "all-loving" in the sense that people tend to use it; that is, He does not love everyone or everything. God is love. Because love is His essence, and anything which goes against His character is wrong, He has every right to destroy anything which is contrary to love. Loving good and hating evil is in no way contrary to God's nature.

G-d has many traits, some of mercy, some of Judgement; he hates none, but administers punishment when required, because it's best for them.

 

 

 

 

6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it.

 

 

 

I've never thought about it that way, and you may be right, but what would the problem with that view be if it were correct?

Umm.. The Torah was written by G-d's word; the Christian bible, however, is not infallible in any sense.

 

 

 

 

7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection.

 

 

 

When there's hundreds of eyewitnesses around who will read your account, somebody's going to make sure you get the facts right, even if you don't have divine inspiration.

Satenza is right, over here. The Christian bible is highly unreliable. The Torah, however, was written with Divine Inspiration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There we go; just defending my religion. Christianity, though; I cannot defend.

[Satenza]

 

1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time.

 

 

 

Proof?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next "ancient" text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad which has survived and was copied 643 times. Recognizing this, renowned professor F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity". (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of naval travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). Still at the time of Constantine the Great, only 10% of the Roman Empire were Christian. During this time Eusebius records, by the authority of a list written by Irenaeus in the first part of the second century, it is decided there are only four gospels which have preserved the true apostolic tradition. (Irenaeus writes four is a magical and complete number, etc.) The many other gospels that exist are Gnostic heresy and false. The whole collection of books which constituted the New Testament was formally dedefined in 382 at the Council of Rome. The collection of books, also known as the Canon, was informally established prior to the Council of Rome, which is evidenced by the Council making reference to it already being known and used. One of the functions of the Council of Rome in 382 was to formally declare and establish the Canon of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[source]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Gospels have been thrown out.

 

 

 

The Gnostic gospels, the ones which were thrown out, were written 100-200 years after the ones which are in the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So? Most of the stories in the New Testament are said to be written around 60-100 years after Jesus' death. However who's to say that the Gnostic Gospels where only written down when they needed to be written down?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors.

 

 

 

Point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Showing the writing are therefore not 100% accurate and don't represent Gods word. Which version of the event do you beleive?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. It contradicts itself.

 

 

 

Quotes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did a search and here's the first result that came out Knock yourself out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders.

 

 

 

Why must those be wrong for God to do?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a side note, the Biblical God is not "all-loving" in the sense that people tend to use it; that is, He does not love everyone or everything. God is love. Because love is His essence, and anything which goes against His character is wrong, He has every right to destroy anything which is contrary to love. Loving good and hating evil is in no way contrary to God's nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you agree that it's fine that the God you love, respect, admire and follow murders and wipes out entire races and the actual entire human race save Noah and a few others? Drowning women and children? Frankly if your God was real and did such things i would never worship him. Ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it.

 

 

 

I've never thought about it that way, and you may be right, but what would the problem with that view be if it were correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That by the men writing the Bible being infalliable you can't be sure that they didn't write to interpret their own opinion or that they didn't get them wrong. Therefore not 100% wold of God, but 100% the opinion of a man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When there's hundreds of eyewitnesses around who will read your account, somebody's going to make sure you get the facts right, even if you don't have divine inspiration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The eye witnesses are dead, remember they where written 60-100 years after the initial events. And a mans lifespan was on average i think 30 years old.

[Astralinre]

yeah, the christian bible, as I said, is a freely and deceptively adapted version of the Torah. The Torah, however, has not changed once since it was given to us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that over 2/3 of the Bible consists of the Torah? Christians call it the Old Testament. I agree that the Torah has not changed. Where is your proof that the New Testament has changed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next "ancient" text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad which has survived and was copied 643 times. Recognizing this, renowned professor F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity". (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of naval travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). Still at the time of Constantine the Great, only 10% of the Roman Empire were Christian. During this time Eusebius records, by the authority of a list written by Irenaeus in the first part of the second century, it is decided there are only four gospels which have preserved the true apostolic tradition. (Irenaeus writes four is a magical and complete number, etc.) The many other gospels that exist are Gnostic heresy and false. The whole collection of books which constituted the New Testament was formally dedefined in 382 at the Council of Rome. The collection of books, also known as the Canon, was informally established prior to the Council of Rome, which is evidenced by the Council making reference to it already being known and used. One of the functions of the Council of Rome in 382 was to formally declare and establish the Canon of the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What in here supports that the New Testament was heavily edited? If it is widely copied, it is easier to assure that changes have not been made. Everything you quoted supports the textual integrity of the NT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So? Most of the stories in the New Testament are said to be written around 60-100 years after Jesus' death. However who's to say that the Gnostic Gospels where only written down when they needed to be written down?

 

 

 

The eye witnesses are dead, remember they where written 60-100 years after the initial events. And a mans lifespan was on average i think 30 years old.

 

 

 

If you had read the link I posted earlier, there is plenty of textual evidence to suggest that most of the NT was written before 60 AD, which is less than 30 years after the events that took place, so plenty of eyewitnesses would still be around. There's a huge difference between 10-30 years after the event and 100-250 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Showing the writing are therefore not 100% accurate and don't represent Gods word. Which version of the event do you beleive?

 

 

 

Since I've never seen any two which directly contradict in any way other than wording, I believe both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did a search and here's the first result that came out Knock yourself out.

 

 

 

I don't mean to be difficult, but I can't get anything on that page to load correctly. Would you mind copy-pasting some of the argument for me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you agree that it's fine that the God you love, respect, admire and follow murders and wipes out entire races and the actual entire human race save Noah and a few others? Drowning women and children? Frankly if your God was real and did such things i would never worship him. Ever.

 

 

 

Who am I to question an all-powerful being? If the God of the Bible exists, He has the right to do whatever He wishes with His creation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That by the men writing the Bible being infalliable you can't be sure that they didn't write to interpret their own opinion or that they didn't get them wrong. Therefore not 100% wold of God, but 100% the opinion of a man.

 

 

 

I think you've got the definition of infallible wrong. Infallible means not making mistakes.

[Satenza]

I will reply tommorow, sorry about saying infalliable instead of falliable. I put it down to it being 1:20AM :)

[Astralinre]

I will reply tommorow, sorry about saying infalliable instead of falliable. I put it down to it being 1:20AM :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, that's alright man. I look foward to continuing this tomorrow. :)

[x_giva]

 

yeah, the christian bible, as I said, is a freely and deceptively adapted version of the Torah. The Torah, however, has not changed once since it was given to us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize that over 2/3 of the Bible consists of the Torah? Christians call it the Old Testament. I agree that the Torah has not changed. Where is your proof that the New Testament has changed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm saying that the christian bible is not the Torah. Well, not exactly. Lots of things are horribly mistranslated from the original text. Example? The virgin birth prophecy: [cough] well, it says that she will be a virgin and give birth (something along those lines, I only read through it once in a book). The hebrew word used there is does not mean virgin. It means maiden. I could give you an exact quotation if you'd read me your version and Tell me where the verses are. Still, there are who knows how many versions of the Christian bible, all with slightly altering text; there's only one Torah.

[Continuum]

Only an idiot takes the Bible 100% literally and probably isn't truly Christian. Fundamentalists are what they are. The Bible was written ages ago, so of course people didn't have the dates right. You guys are ocmbining Faith with Science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It contradicts itself (Yes, it does, and I don't feel like digging up exact quotes. Just compare the four Gospels' accounts of the whole tomb story), but that's because the Gospels were written by different authors, at different times, for different audiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Random Quote: Christianity is like an expansion pack for Judaism.

[Rebdragon]

Cain, after killing his brother Abel, is given a mark by God to be shunned by all of mankind. Funny how he and his parents are the only humans alive, and yet here it says that there are other people around at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just saying; even the Pentatuch has it's technical contradictions. Doesn't diminish it's meaning, it just means we shouldn't take everything literally.

[warri0r45]

When there's hundreds of eyewitnesses around who will read your account, somebody's going to make sure you get the facts right, even if you don't have divine inspiration.

 

 

 

So by that reasoning, evolutionists have the facts right (considering its 95% or better of the scientific community who endorse evolution, which is a fair bit more than 'hundreds of eye witnesses'). I know this looks like I'm attacking your post, but the intention is purely to compare my point to yours (and yes, I know your post had nothing to do with evolution).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

destroy anything which is contrary to love.

Forgive me for questioning the unquestionable god, but this sounds like a dictatorship to me, even if it is intended to maxamise something as pure as love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one thing not possible is that everything happened by chance.

Not quite. Scientists find it to be very possible due to the undisputed fact that DNA nucleotide mispairing is random as are the possibilities of a beneficial or a detrimental outcome to that offspring organism.

[Korskin]

I can't see how anyone would take it as 100% word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time.

 

 

 

2. Gospels have been thrown out.

 

 

 

3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors.

 

 

 

4. It contradicts itself.

 

 

 

5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders.

 

 

 

6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it.

 

 

 

7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you put trust into something despite all of that. Is it even logical to do so?

 

 

 

What it comes down to is whether you believe in God or not and his abiltity to work through humans and making sure that the Bible turned out the way he planned. And I believe that an allmighty God would be able to do so.

[warri0r45]

 

I can't see how anyone would take it as 100% word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time.

 

 

 

2. Gospels have been thrown out.

 

 

 

3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors.

 

 

 

4. It contradicts itself.

 

 

 

5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders.

 

 

 

6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it.

 

 

 

7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you put trust into something despite all of that. Is it even logical to do so?

 

 

 

What it comes down to is whether you believe in God or not and his abiltity to work through humans and making sure that the Bible turned out the way he planned. And I believe that an allmighty God would be able to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If god would want his word to be taken seriously, it makes me wonder why he didn't send some obvious heavanly prophet-like creature incarnate to do it. The idea of having human write something godly, no matter how so aparrantly inspired they were, is just fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

[Tigra00]

Please, if you think the Bible has NO contradictions, do yourself a favor and type "Bible contradictions" into Google and click the first site you see. Or the second. Or 44,000th. It really doesn't matter, because people have whole websites dedicated to pointing them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But of course, like the last guy here I explained it to, he simply said "They took it out of context or are lying" without reading the website. They're direct quotes from the Bible...How can you take that out of context? They're not things you can take out of context. Numbers of things, people, blah blah. Go look it up. Astra, anyone else who thinks it's some infallible book. Have you ever even read the thing or what? It's horribly obvious it was written by several humans with apparently no inspiration from a devine being. It's almost as if the stories were passed on to them and they desided to write them down, "telephone game" mistakes and all.

[Korskin]

 

 

I can't see how anyone would take it as 100% word of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It's known to have been edited a lot over time.

 

 

 

2. Gospels have been thrown out.

 

 

 

3. It has different 'recounts' of events from the authors.

 

 

 

4. It contradicts itself.

 

 

 

5. An all loving and perfect God commits at least 4 acts of genocide and over 100 murders.

 

 

 

6. By assuming the bible is infalliable you are assuming humans are infalliable when writing it.

 

 

 

7. You are relying on people telling a 100% exact recount of an event that happened years before going off their recollection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you put trust into something despite all of that. Is it even logical to do so?

 

 

 

What it comes down to is whether you believe in God or not and his abiltity to work through humans and making sure that the Bible turned out the way he planned. And I believe that an allmighty God would be able to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If god would want his word to be taken seriously, it makes me wonder why he didn't send some obvious heavanly prophet-like creature incarnate to do it. The idea of having human write something godly, no matter how so aparrantly inspired they were, is just fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think of it as when an architect plans to build a building. Does it not turn out the way he planned even though there are a lot of different machines and people doing the actual building process, perhaps not knowing exactly what they were doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Throughout the Bible God doesn't use the most infulential or popular people to do his work. More often than not he tends to use the underdog, who from our point of view would seem like the odd choice.