Is the Bible the Truth?

[Vision]

"When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" - James 1:13

Doesn't this mean that God is omnibenevolent (all-good) because if He can't be tempted by evil He can only be good right?

"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27

" 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' " - Revelation 1:8

Doesn't this mean that God is omnipotent (all-powerful)?

"O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." - Psalm 139:1-4

Doesn't this mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing) or at least that He knows the future and that He also knows people's thoughts?

Now we got to the point:
IF God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent then why, for example, why does all that bad stuff happen to Job?

"Well of course God was testing his belief and his righteousness!" (He gave Satan the permission) But why did He have to test him in the first place if He is all-knowing? He would have known that Job really was a true believer. And if God actually knew he was indeed a true beliver then why did he test him?

"To prove Job's belief to Satan of course!" Well why did he have to prove it to Him? If he did it just for that then he isn't omnibenevolent (though He wouldn't be that in the case of testing his belief either) The fact that he allowed Satan to do these evil things to Job proves that God isn't omnibenevolent and/or omniscient.

And if we think about the real world and the starvation, genocides, weapons of mass destruction, and etc...Why does this happen if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? This is also known as Theodicy, the problem of evil. "Unknown are the ways of God!" and "It all leads to God's ultimate plan!" are the common explanations. Well if it all leads to His "ultimate plan" why doesn't he make that plan happen right now. I mean He is all-powerful for crying out loud, isn't he. And if he is in fact omnipotent and all the people in this world aren't happy and replete then He can't be omnibenevolent cause He holds all the power and He could make them all happy. Right? And He knows about their suffering if he is omniscient. So let's make this a clear presentation shall we:

"Facts":
1: God is omnipotent > He can destroy evil
2: God is omnibenevolent > He is against evil
3: God is omniscient > He knows about evil
4: There is evil in the world

Basically number four and 1,2,3 are contradictory so God cannot be all one, two, and three. He is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent or not omniscient and there is only one other possibilty and that is that He doesn't exist.

Some say that there is evil because God wanted humans to have free will and do what they want and that is why there's evil (because of humans) But God still made humans the way they are so couldn't He have made them moral creatures that do not commit crimes etc. Again if He couldn't do this He isn't omnipotent.

"Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " - Exodus 32:27

Here Moses tells these people to kill and he says that that is what God said. Isn't this a bit contradictory with Exodus 20:13 stating that "You shall not murder." (New International Version of Bible from Biblegateway.com. Also sometimes translated "Thou shalt not kill.") Of course Moses might have just been making this stuff up but then again aren't the first five books of the Bible "Books of Moses"? If Moses lied about God saying that would we have to discard the first five books of the Bible? That includes Genesis :D

I'll end this here but if something else comes to my mind I will continue to list reasons. I encourage everyone to try to crush my arguments! I think that the Christian God does not exist. Those are some of my reasons above. But this is strictly about whether the Bible is true so discuss (debate, fight) about it.

[destroy_musick]

i have always seperated the biblical god to a spiritual god around me. If i can do that, then the universe around me is suddenly open. There is no good, nor is there evil because God, where as not existing physically, binds the universe together. We are god, everything is god, everything we experience, all that we are is one breathing conciousness.

Wow, can you suspect i may be smoking something there?

[Catterix]

Its a book that coincides with a religion. Some people choose to believe it, some not.

Bloody hell, why do so many people focus on the Bible?! Practically every other religion has a sacred book with teachings and whatnot. Stop focusing on Christianity ya fools!

[Vision]

Yeah many religions have sacred books. But the Bible is the one I disagree with the most so it's pretty logical for me to try to bash it and not the other books. I think that there might just be some different God out there (no Christian God though).

[Catterix]

Uhuh... Good... for... you?

Its logical to bash something because you don't agree with it. - snip -

But uhm... if that's what makes you feel good about yourself, bashing something that has nothing to do with you... Carry On smile-big

[Vision]

:D Maybe 'bash' was a little too powerful a word for this purpose...Well it's just that I like to debate. And I don't think that it makes me antisocial if I bash things I don't agree with since that would (usually) only turn into a heated debate and I think that is social.

[Catterix]

Aaah Okies cool.

Nah, its just me being extra picky. I also just find it annoying when people seem to "HATE" something when really, they just don't like it that much. And things of that effect. And it just seemed a bit like that to me, ie. you don't have to agree with it, but then you should just ignore it and not let it bother you. To actively bash it, deliberately to upset others (after all, that is the point of "bashing"...) is just too much.

I find it hard to follow the Bible. But that's why I'm a Christian, a follower of Christ, not a bloody Biblifist who believes every word in that contradicting book :P

[Grrblt]

"Facts":
1: God is omnipotent > He can destroy evil
2: God is omnibenevolent > He is against evil
3: God is omniscient > He knows about evil
4: There is evil in the world

Define evil.

[Catterix]

In my opinion:

Evil - The Absence of God.

Darkness is just the Absence of light. Darkness doesn't exist, whereas light, and moving light particles do exist. It is their presence that get rid of Darkness.

Cold is just the absence of heat. Cold is when nothing moves, not a molecule. There isn't such thing as coldness, it is the word used to describe the absense of heat molecules, when they are not there to keep things "moving" :P

Evil. Absence of God. No need to explain any further :P

[Toby]

Doesn`t it even occur to you that if God dealt with every challenge humanity faces there would be no progress in our society and thus we could not achieve perfection? Let`s face the facts we have about Christianity, being made in God`s divine picture we are still imperfect, yet the children of the almighty.

We are bound to a fate to serve God by respecting him, but leading our lives in his way to show our worth. If there was no challenge we`d all be in Eden and lived in complete apathy. Which we don`t. Hence challenge is necessary.

[Vision]

But if God is omnipotent we would not live in complete apathy in Eden. With His power he could do anything (even make us perfect instantly)

And with evil I was just referring to all the bad things that happen (eg starvation)

[Shogun]

in response to the title of this thread: Hell no.

[Trias]

You lose, just because you judge God by your own moral codes. I wouldn't say something like this if it was a decent arguement, but, as I said, you lose.

[Catterix]

But if God is omnipotent we would not live in complete apathy in Eden. With His power he could do anything (even make us perfect instantly)

And with evil I was just referring to all the bad things that happen (eg starvation)

Eden never existed. Absolutely NONE of Genesis was written to be taken Literally. Its all metaphorical. Eden is to show that we, mankind, are sinners when we turn away from God. In the story, we were given one order, one restriction, one law. And we broke that law. By so doing, we were banished from the Garden of Eden, ie. Banished from perfection. Damn it! I can't get the right words out... I need to rest lol... meh, i think thats clear enough

[Toby]

But if God is omnipotent we would not live in complete apathy in Eden. With His power he could do anything (even make us perfect instantly)

And with evil I was just referring to all the bad things that happen (eg starvation)

God could have made us perfect, and he will always have that power.
However, not having made us perfect there was a darn good reason for it; maybe that is one of the things we are set on this earth to figure out?

I know what you meant, but starvation is also a challenge.

[Master Scorpion]

But if God is omnipotent we would not live in complete apathy in Eden. With His power he could do anything (even make us perfect instantly)

And with evil I was just referring to all the bad things that happen (eg starvation)
Listen carefully, God is not a typical of a person who wanted to destroy evil existences and make us perfect with only one blink.
He created the first human Adam, and gave him conscience,will, and wisdom.
So humans have right to do what they want.
Even angels can do sins, just look at Lucifer and his ex-angel followers.

Living in earth is like an exam to testing your faith and your willingness to follow God with all your heart.
And if you pass the exam, then heaven is waiting for you.

God has his own right time, when and where He will banish Satan for good, and all evil existences, that what we called it "end of the world" or the final war between God and Satan "armageddon"

And with the second coming of Jesus, Satan and his followers will be judged by God, so we have to know what the meaning behinds God's words.

Bible was written by apostles and the prophets that God chosen and not by ordinary people. Don't be blind by false theory which has been invented by logic and not by spritual views.

The bible says that in the end of the second coming of Jesus,false prophets will emerge in this earth, and many people will turn from their faith for believing God, so I don't surprise why many people questioning about God, Jesus, and the bible itself.

In this earth theres been two choices, which one that you want to follow.. good or evil, or you choose your own mind and logic.
We are not perfect, we always make a mistake.So thats up to you, just believe what you want to believe.

[Vision]

You lose, just because you judge God by your own moral codes. I wouldn't say something like this if it was a decent arguement, but, as I said, you lose.

Yes I judge him by my own moral codes. But starvation is in fact bad. There is (extremely probably) no-one who would say that happiness is worse than being sad. If god thinks that being sad is better...well that's no reason to make us be sad too. If he truly were omnibenevolent he would make us all happy. We could still appreciate happiness as much as now because God would make it so with His omnipotence.

[Vision]

Living in earth is like an exam to testing your faith and your willingness to follow God with all your heart.
And if you pass the exam, then heaven is waiting for you.

Bible was written by apostles and the prophets that God chosen and not by ordinary people. Don't be blind by false theory which has been invented by logic and not by spritual views.


But why does He do this "evil" test if He is omnibenevolent? Should He not give everyone passage to heaven if He were that good? Isn't it a bit selfish of God to say that everyone has to follow him? (Does He think He is a God or something ;) the joke inside these brackets is not to be taken seriously)

And about prophets/apostles: read my first post's last paragraph. About the order to kill. Why do the prophets/apostles contradict each other if they are "not ordinary people" or something higher?

[Trias]

Yes I judge him by my own moral codes. But starvation is in fact bad. There is (extremely probably) no-one who would say that happiness is worse than being sad. If god thinks that being sad is better...well that's no reason to make us be sad too. If he truly were omnibenevolent he would make us all happy. We could still appreciate happiness as much as now because God would make it so with His omnipotence.

The problem in your logic is that, a mortal mind wouldn't be able to understand god's logic. This logic is flawed about this matter. (I have to go so I don't write much but well.... I really don't like writing an essay about that, too.)

[Vision]

The problem in your logic is that, a mortal mind wouldn't be able to understand god's logic. This logic is flawed about this matter. (I have to go so I don't write much but well.... I really don't like writing an essay about that, too.)

I thought you would say that. Well there's almost six billion people here. If God thinks otherwise than we is it really rightful of him to do what He thinks is good. He knows that we think that starvation is bad (He is omniscient afterall...) so He can't be omnibenevolent if He doesn't undo this serious problem that causes so much suffering. There cannot be a reason to suffering if God is all three omnis. He could just make His great plan happen right away and not make us suffer. If suffering has something to do with us being able to develop...again He should be able to make us develop instantly.

[Amra]

You do not need to limit yourself to a single argument to come to the conclusion that the Bible is not “True”. In fact there are a great many arguments against the concept of Biblical Infallibility. I will list the ones I am most familiar with, and provide justification for each one. There are certainly other arguments, but the ones I will show are the most justifiable, and while I do enjoy some of the other arguments, they can too easily be dismissed by “interpretation”. But I might just because they are fun.

The Bible cannot be truth because Translational Errors exist.

To start with, there are a few people who will try and say that there are no translational errors, those people obviously have never actually read the Bible. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, and we must rely of translation from one language to another, but this is not as easy as it sounds because grammar is entirely different, and languages like Hebrew for example, use single words for many different things, and so it is up to the translator to decide which of the definitions fits the context better then the others. For example The Bible often refers to the 'keeping' of God's commands and covenant. To "keep" the commands of God is generally translated or understood as to "obey" the commands, but this is not completely true since the Hebrew word "shamar" (rm#) literally means to guard or protect. The breaking of the commands is translated or understood as "disobeying" but the Hebrew word "Parar" (rrp) literally means to trample underfoot.

This is not the only example; some are far easier to spot, because their evidence is in English. David lifted his spear and killed eight hundred people in one swing in 2 Samuel 23:8 but only killed three hundred with that swipe in I Chronicles 11:11. It is said that David captured one thousand and seven hundred horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4 but that he captured seven thousand in I Chronicles 18:4. In the book of Joshua is says that the Israelites DID capture Jerusalem (Joshua 10:23, 40), and that they DIDN’T capture Jerusalem (Joshua 15:63). There are over fifty similar numerical and translational errors, and while these can be pointed out as blatant contradictions, but they are equally likely to be translational errors, so I will use other arguments for the contradiction portion.

The point is it is pretty much impossible to deny these errors, you must simply accept that there ARE translational errors, but if the Bible was inspired and guided by the very hand of God, then there would NOT be translational errors, this means that God played no part in the translation of the Bible, meaning that man has unwittingly changed the Bible, and it is entirely possible that it does NOT display its intended messages.

The Bible cannot be truth because various Scriptures blatantly contradict each other

Yes, we can also blame these on Translation, but would be a much more complicated and involved argument then simply moving numbers around or changing yes and no. I will ask a simple Biblical question, then Provide the scriptures that answer that question, and after a brief stance on its legitimacy.

What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
Mark 15:34 / Matt 27:46– My God my God, why have you forsaken me?
Luke 23:46 – Into your hands I commend my spirit
John 19:30 – It is finished

If all Disciples were present, then why did they all hear different things? If they all heard all of the above, then why don’t more then two match?

How did Judas Iscariot die in the Bible?
Matthew 27:3-5, 8
Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" and he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
... For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1:18-19
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Even if you find a way to justify the two different deaths, which isn’t possible without extreme interpretation, you cannot account for the different actions regarding what was done with the silver. Even the reason for the name of the field is different, because it was purchased with blood money, or because Judas spilled his blood there. The best a Christian can do is try to confuse you or blame translation.

What does the Bible say about bearing your own witness?

John 5:3 – If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true
John 8:14 – Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true

This has particular religious implications to missionaries, as most of those are taught that if people start asking you questions that seem to challenge your faith, you bear your witness to them and leave, and that you should practice what you should say by bearing your witness to yourself in front the mirror. (I almost went on a mission in my past).

How should people bear their burdens

Galatians 6:2 - Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:5 - For every man shall bear his own burden.

In this scripture, Jesus commands one thing, then almost immediately commands the opposite, with very little clarification as to which is to be used when, or why.

There are a great many of these such examples, but I am not going to try not to clog up each section with all of these examples, there are a lot of other problems that need to be addressed, if someone should want more, then they shall be provided.

The Bible cannot be truth based on logical reasoning.

There are a great many arguments that can fall into this category, but I will try and stick with the most well known ones.

One is the one presented by Vision, a very real and necessary consideration, and since he has presented it I shall forgo further exemplifying it.

Logical Argument 1: God cannot change, yet the basic philosophies between the Old Testament (The Jealous and Angry Christian God) and the New Testament (The Omni-Benevolent all forgiving all loving Christian God) are different. If God cannot change then he is the same as he was written in the OT.

Logical Argument 2: There are various scientific inaccuracies in how people understand the Earth in the Bible, if God is Omnipotent as is dictated, then he could have simply explained the working of various basic natural phenomenon. *see next section for examples*

Logical Argument 3: According to Genesis 9:3-9 God struck a covenant with Noah and all his seed thereafter, that if they adhere to a few basic laws they shall never die. Every person on the planet is allegedly seed of Noah, there for all people have the ability to live forever by following a couple basic laws, that people usually follow unwittingly. Because of this Covenant, the entire Blood covenant is needless, there is no need or reason or purpose to allow Jesus to die on a cross when all of Noah’s seed have a promise of eternal life.

Logical Argument 4: The Bible in which Christianity is bases, does not explain what Christianity is, what a Christian is, or what it takes to be a Christian, so how can so many people use this term to define themselves so differently, Catholics are Christians and Baptists are Christians, but Catholics are certainly not Baptists, yet both are based off the same book, so if the Bible cannot define Christianity, how can we expect man to?

Logical Argument 5: The fact that there are over 1000 different denominations of Christianity must speak for the ability of people to either manipulate the Bible to say what we want to say, or that what is written is so unclear that one can pretty much gather any personal belief one intends to find in the first place, in either case it demonstrates that the Bible cannot be used to define a single truth, or there would only be one denomination, not over 1000.

Logical Argument 6: The existence of God is dependant on faith, then if he proved his existence then you would no longer need faith, and thus prove that God didn’t exist. This is more of a paradox.

Logical Argument 7: If God were omniscient, he would know of our now technological understanding, and create the Bible in a way that science would only further justify its truth, instead of proving it errant, (see next section). Furthermore, he would realize times would change and things like Pork which were unclean animals who ate rotting corpses and harbored great many diseases, would eventually be benign in nature and that it would only be fed scraps of good food and no longer be a source of death and disease, yet there is no such stipulation. The Bible was written for those times only, and does not take into account social changes that may occur.

There are others, but lets start small :)

<Continued in next post>

[Amra]

The Bible cannot be truth because it contains scientific fallacies based on primitive understanding

In Genesis 1:6-8 it is explained that the Firmament separates the waters above and the waters below. It later says in Psalms that the rain falls from doors and windows of the sky.

In essence this explains to people that the sky is blue because there is water above the sky, and that rain comes from this water above the firmament.

We now know that rain come from evaporated moisture condensed into clouds (this is called the water cycle), and that the sky is blue because of the diffraction of light, and there is no water above our atmosphere. Why would God allow such a fallacy in his book, in his omniscience he could have simply explained the water cycle to man.

Genesis also says that two lights are created, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. In reality the Moon produces no light, and the light of the moon is reflected. Was this also too complicated to explain to man?

Revelations 7:1 says the earth has four corners, in reality the earth is spherical, and has no corners.

Throughout Leviticus the following things are alleged, hares have cloven hooves and chew cud, that seeds die before sprouting, that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, that grasshoppers are four-legged animals, and that the heart is the seat of awareness. None of these are scientifically accurate.

1 Samuel 2:8 says that the pillars of the Earth are the Lords and the he has set the world upon them. We all know the earth is not set upon pillars, and some of us realize that this was a even more ancient Babylonian belief where the earth was a falt disk held up by pillars, with a dome above and water above the dome. (see firmament)

The entire Biblical flood story (more on it later though), there is not only no geological evidence of a world wide flood, there is archeological evidence of other civilizations thriving throughout the alleged period of time this occurred. More on this in the next section.

And just for fun…

"The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority
is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of
the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven
days." Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from
the Sun, and in addition 7*7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the
Sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the Moon is one
1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ...
The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat
lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e.,
Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the
Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)
temperature of the earth (-300K), gives H as 798K (525C). The exact
temperature of Hell cannot be computed ... [However] Revelations 21:8 says
"But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone means
that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We
have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C."
[From "Applied Optics" vol. 11, A14, 1972]

The Bible cannot be truth because some of the stories are taken from previously existing civilizations.

Most evident of this is the Biblical Flood, in comparison to the Epic of Gilgamesh, but there are other flood stories such as Popol Vuh or Platos book Critias. But the Epic of Gilgamesh is strikingly similar to the Genesis account, I mean word for word. The interesting thing about it, is there have been tablets with parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh found and dated as far back as 2000BCE, some possibly earlier, Scholars generally agree the book of Genesis was written over the course of 400 years, between 950-540BCE, this is based on the Torah having many different Writing styles and even using different names for God in the original Penaeuch, while extremely conservative Christians say it was written about 1450BCE, in either case the Epic predates by from 500-1100 years, possibly more. Furthermore there is no geological record of a Global flood, and the closest possibly candidate (given the location of the flood stories) would be a cataclysmic flooding of the Black Sea that occurred around 5600BCE, and even then this is a local event and not a Global event, making both accounts errant.

Many of the events that are described as Jesus doing were preformed by other saviors around the same time, and these events are verifiable through multiple sources but the only source of Jesus’ is the Bible. See next section for a couple names.

The Bible cannot be truth because few of the stories can be historically verified

This one really does not need much justification. There are a great many people in the Bible whom no record can be found that they even existed, sure there is evidence of certain places, and certain events, but in any of those events that have been shown to even be possible have also been shown that the actions which were suppose to be miraculous were easily explained by natural phenomenon.

The walls of Jericho were felled by an earthquake, not a shout as dictated in the Bible, and that geological event was used to an advantage, and the story later exaggerated to make it seem like God did it. You may not believe this, but its geologically verifiable, and you cannot disprove it.

The crossing of the Red sea has been showed to most likely be the Reed Sea (Another translational Error) which is nothing more then a marsh, and if it WAS the Red Sea, there is a large sandbar extending the length of it that one can cross in certain situations. Once again, this is geologically verifiable.

The New Testament is much harder to find evidence for, as there is no evidence of Jesus’ existence, and furthermore there were a multitude of religious ‘saviors’ running around that time. Many of which have miracles associated with them, such as Apollonius of Tyana, Empodocles, or even Dionysus.

The Bible cannot be truth because the Gospel accounts do not coincide

There is very little need to provide examples because the different Gospels can be from subtly different to drastic differences. I will try and point out a few other then the ones already mentioned, but to truly understand this one, you really need to read the Gospels.

In one Gospel, Jesus rode into town on only a colt, in another gospel it is a colt and an ass.
In one Gospel Peter finds out Jesus is God through a revelation from Heaven, in another gospel his brother tells him.
In one Gospel Jesus meets Simon Peter and Andrew by the sea of Galilee, in another he meets them at the banks of the river Jordon before he ever goes to Galilee
In one Gospel Herod thought Jesus was John the Baptist, but not in another Gospel.
In one Gospel Jesus cleanses the temple the same day he arrived, in another it was too late and he want to Bethany and returned the next day to cleansed the temple.
In one Gospel Jesus cursed a fig tree and it withered at once, in another it withered overnight.
In one Gospel Judas kissed Jesus to show who Jesus was, in another Gospel he could not get close enough to kiss him
In one Gospel Jesus carried his own Cross, in another he didn’t.
In one Gospel bother crucified thieves mocked Jesus, in another one mocked him while the other defended him
The wording on the Cross is different in every single Gospel
In three Gospels Jesus prayed to prevent the crucifixion, in one he does not.
In one Gospel Mary immediately recognizes the risen Jesus and falls to worship, in another Gospel she mistakes him for a Gardener and fails to recognize him until he speaker her name
In one Gospel when Jesus walks on water the Diciples worship Jesus praising him as the son of God, in another Gospel they were astounded but their hearts were hardened to the spectacle.

To truly understand these differences and the countless others, you really need to read the Gospels for yourself.

<Continued on next post>

[Amra]

The Bible cannot be truth because it promotes immoral behavior such as slavery, hatred and murder.

Lets see, there are plenty of examples but lets start small…

1 Samuel 15:3 - Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Exodus 21:7 - And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

II Kings 2:23-24 - And he went up from thence unto Bethlehem and he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them

There are actually a lot more, but I wanted to start small, this response will already be exorbitantly long as it is.

The Bible cannot be truth because there is not enough information contained to form anything other then a biased opinion.

There are many cases where the Bible performs atrocious actions, and there is no evidence provided to the reader as to how and why these people needed to be destroyed. The Amalekites are a perfect example, it is commanded to kill them, and not just the men, but the women, the children, the infants, even the animals. The problem is there is no information as to how and why this massive extermination is so vitally necessary.

When Moses goes to Canaan, he commands his people to eliminate everyone in their land, once again there is little to no justification as to why.

When the flood takes place, we are only told that the world had become wicked, and needed to be cleansed. But I cannot help to think about the world trade centers, where the Muslim extremists said the same thing about us, that we have become wicked and they needed to strike deep into the heart of the infidel. So the people in the trade center were punished for the sins of a few… even though they were innocent in our eyes. Can you see the correlation?

Later Moses is sent to Pharaoh to free his people, yet before Moses gets there, God hardens pharaohs heart, forcing them to endure 7 plagues, lose many lives and all the firstborn all because God hardened his heart, and yet we are suppose to blame the Egyptians even though they weren’t given a valid choice? There is no information why God hardened pharaohs heart.

Another example is the entire book of Joshua, most people know the story up to the point that the walls came tumbling down, but there is more, and there is very little justification for the next part of the story, but I wont explain more then that, if you are curious, read it.

The Bible cannot be truth because in it has changed in certain situations

Catholic Bible before the year 1964:
Ezekiel 34:16 I will seek that which was lost: and that which was driven away, I will bring again: and I will bind up that which was broken, and I will strengthen that which was weak, and that which was fat and strong I will preserve: and I will feed them in judgment.

After 1964:
Ezekiel 34:16,I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice.

Notice in the first example that it says “I will preserve”, while in the other example it says “I will destroy”. So which is it? Which translation is correct? The meaning is entirely different as well, it’s a pretty impacting change.

------------------------------------




I think I will stop here, my fingers hurt... lol.

Please Discuss. Post rebuttles, Add more examples, whatever you want. Im Game.

Also, I want to point out that my main purpose for taking the time to create these posts is that it will piss off a few Christians and make them want to actually read the Bible, if the Bible doesnt turn them into Athiests like it did most logical people, at the very least there will a few more educated Christians out there, something the Christian community desperately needs.

[Parell]

I believe parts of the New Testamnet have been edited but I think the Old Testament is true.

[Vision]

I bow down to your extensive knowledge of the Bible. Although I did say that I might later add more arguments to this thread. I thank you, ally, for informing us about the contradictions in the Bible.

[Toby]

Yes I judge him by my own moral codes. But starvation is in fact bad. There is (extremely probably) no-one who would say that happiness is worse than being sad. If god thinks that being sad is better...well that's no reason to make us be sad too. If he truly were omnibenevolent he would make us all happy. We could still appreciate happiness as much as now because God would make it so with His omnipotence.

A reason to make you sad is the reason to make you happy. You understand the other by knowing its opposite.

[wiggely]

one question? what does this have to do with philosophy and why is it in the philosophical forum?

[EvilMoogle]

A simple proof to think about:

Assumption #1: God is omnibenevolent (all-good).
Assumption #2: God created the universe and everything in it.

Fact #1: Evil exists.

By assumption #2 if evil exists, God must have created it. However by assumption #1 if God is all-good then he would not create evil.

Thus either Assumption #1 or Assumption #2 must be flawed (or both, but at least one of them).

[Vision]

A reason to make you sad is the reason to make you happy. You understand the other by knowing its opposite.

Yes that's basically what I think but if there was a God with the three omnis he should be able to make us understand happiness without having to make us suffer.

And this is in the Philosophical forum because in the Debate section there was a thread named WHAT BELONGS HERE and it said that no religion stuff or something like that.

[baconbits]

You do not need to limit yourself to a single argument to come to the conclusion that the Bible is not “True”. In fact there are a great many arguments against the concept of Biblical Infallibility. I will list the ones I am most familiar with, and provide justification for each one. There are certainly other arguments, but the ones I will show are the most justifiable, and while I do enjoy some of the other arguments, they can too easily be dismissed by “interpretation”. But I might just because they are fun.

Many people think they can disprove the Bible but fail miserably. The reason is that their bias against the Bible goes against their own understanding of it. Since they don't want to understand it, that bias clouds their judgement.

The Bible cannot be truth because Translational Errors exist.

To start with, there are a few people who will try and say that there are no translational errors, those people obviously have never actually read the Bible. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, and we must rely of translation from one language to another, but this is not as easy as it sounds because grammar is entirely different, and languages like Hebrew for example, use single words for many different things, and so it is up to the translator to decide which of the definitions fits the context better then the others. For example The Bible often refers to the 'keeping' of God's commands and covenant. To "keep" the commands of God is generally translated or understood as to "obey" the commands, but this is not completely true since the Hebrew word "shamar" (rm#) literally means to guard or protect. The breaking of the commands is translated or understood as "disobeying" but the Hebrew word "Parar" (rrp) literally means to trample underfoot.

Translation "difficulties" don't disprove the Bible. You can still find the Bible in its original languages, otherwise you wouldn't even know these arguments.

Its always funny to me how we are on a forum that grew from people reading translated manga and watching translated anime but we don't think teams of translaters can translate a book so it can be properly understood.

This is not the only example; some are far easier to spot, because their evidence is in English. David lifted his spear and killed eight hundred people in one swing in 2 Samuel 23:8 but only killed three hundred with that swipe in I Chronicles 11:11.

First of all, it doesn't say in "one swing", it says one battle. Secondly, it wasn't David, it was one of his "mighty men". Thirdly, the manuscripts differ on this number, it is the same depending on which manuscript you have. In the end this difference is not really important to the truths that the Bible ascribes to.

It is said that David captured one thousand and seven hundred horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4 but that he captured seven thousand in I Chronicles 18:4.

This is another difference in manuscripts. If you follow one manuscript for both you'll get the same number.

In the book of Joshua is says that the Israelites DID capture Jerusalem (Joshua 10:23, 40), and that they DIDN’T capture Jerusalem (Joshua 15:63). There are over fifty similar numerical and translational errors, and while these can be pointed out as blatant contradictions, but they are equally likely to be translational errors, so I will use other arguments for the contradiction portion.

Actually you just made a direct lie here. They never claimed to have captured the city of Jerauselem. What happened was the King of Jerauselem went out with his army to attack Joshua and was defeated and captured. The the king was captured, but the claim about the city was never made.

The point is it is pretty much impossible to deny these errors, you must simply accept that there ARE translational errors, but if the Bible was inspired and guided by the very hand of God, then there would NOT be translational errors, this means that God played no part in the translation of the Bible, meaning that man has unwittingly changed the Bible, and it is entirely possible that it does NOT display its intended messages.

Of course man can change the Bible, which is why God warned multiple times NOT to change the book. As it is, translation errors don't equal writing and inspirational errors. If someone copies my homework wrong it doesn't mean I didn't have the right answer originally.

The Bible cannot be truth because various Scriptures blatantly contradict each other

That's actually one of the biggest misconceptions out there. When you actually read the context you'll understand the meaning of each passage.

Yes, we can also blame these on Translation, but would be a much more complicated and involved argument then simply moving numbers around or changing yes and no. I will ask a simple Biblical question, then Provide the scriptures that answer that question, and after a brief stance on its legitimacy.

What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
Mark 15:34 / Matt 27:46– My God my God, why have you forsaken me?

This was said at the ninth hour, it was never claimed those were the last words.

Luke 23:46 – Into your hands I commend my spirit
John 19:30 – It is finished

These don't "contradict", and they seem to just be different parts of the crucifixion.

[baconbits]

If all Disciples were present, then why did they all hear different things? If they all heard all of the above, then why don’t more then two match?

Number one, the diciples were all scattered at this point. Number two, they were not all near each other because they were afraid of being recognized. Number three, none of the gospels is meant to be the end-all of the actions of Jesus, they were representative of His actions and words

How did Judas Iscariot die in the Bible?
Matthew 27:3-5, 8
Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" and he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.
... For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Acts 1:18-19
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Even if you find a way to justify the two different deaths, which isn’t possible without extreme interpretation, you cannot account for the different actions regarding what was done with the silver. Even the reason for the name of the field is different, because it was purchased with blood money, or because Judas spilled his blood there. The best a Christian can do is try to confuse you or blame translation.

These aren't two different deaths, they are two discriptions of the same act. No one would act as if a fall could kill you like that. He bought a field and hung himself and his blood fell in the field. Whether the field was named after the death or money is irrevelent.

What does the Bible say about bearing your own witness?

John 5:3 – If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true
John 8:14 – Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true

This has particular religious implications to missionaries, as most of those are taught that if people start asking you questions that seem to challenge your faith, you bear your witness to them and leave, and that you should practice what you should say by bearing your witness to yourself in front the mirror. (I almost went on a mission in my past).

This is actually not true. In John 5:31 (which is the correct reference), Jesus is referring to the fact that his power comes from God the Father, which you would understand reading the verses before it. In John 8:14 the Pharisees challenged Jesus and said He couldn't bear witness of Himself. His argument was that He knew who He was because He was God. So the two verses have nothing to do with bearing a witness to yourself at all.

How should people bear their burdens

Galatians 6:2 - Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Galatians 6:5 - For every man shall bear his own burden.

In this scripture, Jesus commands one thing, then almost immediately commands the opposite, with very little clarification as to which is to be used when, or why.

First of all, that's Paul, not Jesus. Secondly, the words are referring to two different things. Paul says in verse two that those who are spiritually mature should help those with a burden of sin. In verse five he is continuing his thought that no one should be so proud about their own work and should carry their own work.

There are a great many of these such examples, but I am not going to try not to clog up each section with all of these examples, there are a lot of other problems that need to be addressed, if someone should want more, then they shall be provided.

None of your examples hold water, so I guess you didn't "disprove" the Bible.


The Bible cannot be truth based on logical reasoning.

There are a great many arguments that can fall into this category, but I will try and stick with the most well known ones.

One is the one presented by Vision, a very real and necessary consideration, and since he has presented it I shall forgo further exemplifying it.

Logical Argument 1: God cannot change, yet the basic philosophies between the Old Testament (The Jealous and Angry Christian God) and the New Testament (The Omni-Benevolent all forgiving all loving Christian God) are different. If God cannot change then he is the same as he was written in the OT.

That's actually your misunderstanding of the scriptures. When in the Old Testament does it not say that God is loving and when in the New Testament does it say God is not Jealous and Angry with the wicked? Its the same God in both testaments; there is no change.

Logical Argument 2: There are various scientific inaccuracies in how people understand the Earth in the Bible, if God is Omnipotent as is dictated, then he could have simply explained the working of various basic natural phenomenon. *see next section for examples*

Logical Argument 3: According to Genesis 9:3-9 God struck a covenant with Noah and all his seed thereafter, that if they adhere to a few basic laws they shall never die. Every person on the planet is allegedly seed of Noah, there for all people have the ability to live forever by following a couple basic laws, that people usually follow unwittingly. Because of this Covenant, the entire Blood covenant is needless, there is no need or reason or purpose to allow Jesus to die on a cross when all of Noah’s seed have a promise of eternal life.

I don't know where you got this but God never said anything about never dying in these verses at all. You simply made that part up.

Logical Argument 4: The Bible in which Christianity is bases, does not explain what Christianity is, what a Christian is, or what it takes to be a Christian, so how can so many people use this term to define themselves so differently, Catholics are Christians and Baptists are Christians, but Catholics are certainly not Baptists, yet both are based off the same book, so if the Bible cannot define Christianity, how can we expect man to?

That's not true, either. The Bible defines a Christian as one who believes, through faith, in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an that one is then inhabited by the Holy Spirit. Evidence of a person being a Christian is if that person follows the Bible and obeys the commandments, which is why a Catholic is not a Christian.

Logical Argument 5: The fact that there are over 1000 different denominations of Christianity must speak for the ability of people to either manipulate the Bible to say what we want to say, or that what is written is so unclear that one can pretty much gather any personal belief one intends to find in the first place, in either case it demonstrates that the Bible cannot be used to define a single truth, or there would only be one denomination, not over 1000.

That's laughable. The reason for this is that the world if full of idiots. Just like the great anime Naruto can give rise to many militant Sasuke nerds, the Great Book can give rise to many idiots who have no knowledge of what it really says. Anyone who actually takes the Bible for what it says can only disagree one very complex point, and even in that argument there is considerable agreement.

Logical Argument 6: The existence of God is dependant on faith, then if he proved his existence then you would no longer need faith, and thus prove that God didn’t exist. This is more of a paradox.

That's your misunderstanding of the nature of what faith actually is used for. Faith allows you to believe in God, that's true, but faith also is needed for obedience, prayer, and any other spiritual act.

Secondly the existence of God is not "dependent" on anything. He exists whether we believe in Him or not. We believe in God by faith. If He proved His existance you would still need faith to follow through with that belief.

Logical Argument 7: If God were omniscient, he would know of our now technological understanding, and create the Bible in a way that science would only further justify its truth, instead of proving it errant, (see next section). Furthermore, he would realize times would change and things like Pork which were unclean animals who ate rotting corpses and harbored great many diseases, would eventually be benign in nature and that it would only be fed scraps of good food and no longer be a source of death and disease, yet there is no such stipulation. The Bible was written for those times only, and does not take into account social changes that may occur.

There are others, but lets start small :)

<Continued in next post>

That's one of your worst agruments, yet. God wrote the Bible for people who lived when they had no knowledge of these things we have today. These people had a hard enough time obeying the Bible when God was in front of them, let alone talking about refrigerators. It doesn't disprove the Bible when God doesn't refer to modern technology, and I don't even know how you could use that honestly.

[wiggely]

And this is in the Philosophical forum because in the Debate section there was a thread named WHAT BELONGS HERE and it said that no religion stuff or something like that
that thread is wrong (it was just a wine session by vash). if you go look at my post there you'll see why.

this thread has nothing to do with philosophy. it is a debate over whether the bible is true or not. hence it belongs in the debate forum.

[MartialHorror]

for the record, Christians believe Christianity to be correct, the rest to be wrong.

But as for me, I believe God planned everything and that includes Islam, ect. I do consider them to be Holy, even if I dont always agree.

lol, why do we need another Bible thread?

Edit: People want God to be a conventient God. He's not. Really, whose fault is it for pain and suffering? Humans. I cant stand when humans attack God for so many suffering babies, ect. Tell me, have you ever gone out of your way to adopt one or something? You know, if every human being became selfless and went to go and help them, there probably wouldnt be any starving babies. But we're selfish. God takes care of our souls, not our politics. If you want babies to be saved, save them yourself.

[baconbits]

The Bible cannot be truth because it contains scientific fallacies based on primitive understanding

In Genesis 1:6-8 it is explained that the Firmament separates the waters above and the waters below. It later says in Psalms that the rain falls from doors and windows of the sky.

In essence this explains to people that the sky is blue because there is water above the sky, and that rain comes from this water above the firmament.

That's actually not true. In Genesis 1, the earth was different at this time and had a pre-flood atmosphere, which was much more tropical earthwide. In Psalms it is making a metaphor about the power of God.

We now know that rain come from evaporated moisture condensed into clouds (this is called the water cycle), and that the sky is blue because of the diffraction of light, and there is no water above our atmosphere. Why would God allow such a fallacy in his book, in his omniscience he could have simply explained the water cycle to man.

The water cycle is explained in the Bible, in Ecclesiastes. The passage you are referring to is celebrating the powers of God and how He has a store house of hail. It is simply referring to the times that God used the weather to judge the earth.

Genesis also says that two lights are created, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. In reality the Moon produces no light, and the light of the moon is reflected. Was this also too complicated to explain to man?

Why dissemble on something so simple? From the earth's perspect the moon emits light, and it is a lesser light than the sun. This is not a "fallacy", its a difference in perspective.

Revelations 7:1 says the earth has four corners, in reality the earth is spherical, and has no corners.

The Bible says repeatedly how the earth is round and even says God seperated our sins "as far as the east is from the west". The four corners analogy has to do with a scroll map and how God will say to the entire earth. It is a metaphor, like sunset and sunrise.

Throughout Leviticus the following things are alleged, hares have cloven hooves and chew cud, that seeds die before sprouting, that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, that grasshoppers are four-legged animals, and that the heart is the seat of awareness. None of these are scientifically accurate.

All of these claims are untrue. Hares chew grass, which was translated "chew cud" and have seperated feet or "hooves". Whether or not seeds die before sprouting is debatable since a seed could be seen as its own independent entity from which the plant emerges. Grass hoppers look like they have two arms and four legs if you look at them. The heart is simply the emotional center of a person, just like we say "I love you with all my heart" rather than "I love you with all the passages in my brain that refer to my emotions".

1 Samuel 2:8 says that the pillars of the Earth are the Lords and the he has set the world upon them. We all know the earth is not set upon pillars, and some of us realize that this was a even more ancient Babylonian belief where the earth was a falt disk held up by pillars, with a dome above and water above the dome. (see firmament)

Its not an ancient Babylonian belief because the Babylonians didn't gain presidence until later. Essentially its saying what holds the earth up is in God's power, which is a simple way of saying that the earth is in God's hand and we are at God's mercy.

The entire Biblical flood story (more on it later though), there is not only no geological evidence of a world wide flood, there is archeological evidence of other civilizations thriving throughout the alleged period of time this occurred. More on this in the next section.

That is actually untrue. Every civilization has a story of the flood and there is much evidence of a large worldwide flood. One is the amount of displaced fossils. There have been multiple fossils of fish on top of tall mountains. There have been multiple fossil graveyards, which is what you would expect as animals retreated from the flood. There is more evidence but this is a philisophical debate, not a scientific one.

And just for fun…

"The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority
is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of
the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven
days." Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from
the Sun, and in addition 7*7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the
Sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the Moon is one
1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ...
The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat
lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e.,
Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the
Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)
temperature of the earth (-300K), gives H as 798K (525C). The exact
temperature of Hell cannot be computed ... [However] Revelations 21:8 says
"But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone means
that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We
have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C."
[From "Applied Optics" vol. 11, A14, 1972]

Seven is the number of completeness, so the Bible uses 7 as a metaphor for completeness. If the earth is seven times brighter, it could be a complete brightness or absense of darkeness. Either way its not the situation you make light of, lol.

The Bible cannot be truth because some of the stories are taken from previously existing civilizations.

That's a weak argument. First of all it would add validity to the story if there were corraborating stories. Secondly, by what basis would you give another civilization presidence over the biblical story except by a bias against the bible? The Bible's stories are always documented and detailed. Thirdly, the Bible's "stories" have been written down and preserved, which should also lend them some presidence over legends from other civilizations.

Most evident of this is the Biblical Flood, in comparison to the Epic of Gilgamesh, but there are other flood stories such as Popol Vuh or Platos book Critias. But the Epic of Gilgamesh is strikingly similar to the Genesis account, I mean word for word. The interesting thing about it, is there have been tablets with parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh found and dated as far back as 2000BCE, some possibly earlier, Scholars generally agree the book of Genesis was written over the course of 400 years, between 950-540BCE, this is based on the Torah having many different Writing styles and even using different names for God in the original Penaeuch, while extremely conservative Christians say it was written about 1450BCE, in either case the Epic predates by from 500-1100 years, possibly more. Furthermore there is no geological record of a Global flood, and the closest possibly candidate (given the location of the flood stories) would be a cataclysmic flooding of the Black Sea that occurred around 5600BCE, and even then this is a local event and not a Global event, making both accounts errant.

The stories of the flood only strengthen the flood's truth content. Think about it. If I told you I beat up eight guys, you may not believe it, even if I document their names and what they were doing and have it written down. But if all kinds of people have the same story and some details may get switched around but the main story always proves my story, eventuallly you would believe me.

The same with the flood. Additional stories are additional evidence.

[baconbits]

Many of the events that are described as Jesus doing were preformed by other saviors around the same time, and these events are verifiable through multiple sources but the only source of Jesus’ is the Bible. See next section for a couple names.

That's illogical for one reason: the Jews were hostile to christianity. If the Jews were able to prove Jesus didn't exist or didn't do what He said they would have been able to disprove it since the books were only written 20 years after His death.

The Bible cannot be truth because few of the stories can be historically verified

That wouldn't stop it from being the truth. If things in the Bible were historically contradicted then that might be an argument.

This one really does not need much justification. There are a great many people in the Bible whom no record can be found that they even existed, sure there is evidence of certain places, and certain events, but in any of those events that have been shown to even be possible have also been shown that the actions which were suppose to be miraculous were easily explained by natural phenomenon.

The walls of Jericho were felled by an earthquake, not a shout as dictated in the Bible, and that geological event was used to an advantage, and the story later exaggerated to make it seem like God did it. You may not believe this, but its geologically verifiable, and you cannot disprove it.

Exactly how would you prove that a earthquake happened, not by the power of God, but geologically and that it was just "taken advantage of" and not caused?

The crossing of the Red sea has been showed to most likely be the Reed Sea (Another translational Error) which is nothing more then a marsh, and if it WAS the Red Sea, there is a large sandbar extending the length of it that one can cross in certain situations. Once again, this is geologically verifiable.

The people crossed the middle of the Red Sea. The Bible even gives the means of their crossing: a strong wind from God, which would allow them to cross through the sand bar.

The New Testament is much harder to find evidence for, as there is no evidence of Jesus’ existence, and furthermore there were a multitude of religious ‘saviors’ running around that time.

This argument is a weak one because if Jesus didn't exist then the apostles would have had zero sucess in witnessing in Jerauselem directly after His made up death.

Many of which have miracles associated with them, such as Apollonius of Tyana, Empodocles, or even Dionysus.

The Bible cannot be truth because the Gospel accounts do not coincide

There is very little need to provide examples because the different Gospels can be from subtly different to drastic differences. I will try and point out a few other then the ones already mentioned, but to truly understand this one, you really need to read the Gospels.

In one Gospel, Jesus rode into town on only a colt, in another gospel it is a colt and an ass.

That "story" is the same in all four gospels.

In one Gospel Peter finds out Jesus is God through a revelation from Heaven, in another gospel his brother tells him.

That's actually not even true. That account of Peter finding Jesus by revelation doesn't exist.

In one Gospel Jesus meets Simon Peter and Andrew by the sea of Galilee, in another he meets them at the banks of the river Jordon before he ever goes to Galilee

That's because He met them twice. One was to follow Him, another to leave their business and follow him.

In one Gospel Herod thought Jesus was John the Baptist, but not in another Gospel.

Herod had a guilty conscience and thought Jesus was John the Baptist from the dead. That is the only account of it.

In one Gospel Jesus cleanses the temple the same day he arrived, in another it was too late and he want to Bethany and returned the next day to cleansed the temple.

Those were two different visits.

In one Gospel Jesus cursed a fig tree and it withered at once, in another it withered overnight.

It was struck at once, and it withered overnight.

In one Gospel Judas kissed Jesus to show who Jesus was, in another Gospel he could not get close enough to kiss him

Another fabrication by yourself.

In one Gospel Jesus carried his own Cross, in another he didn’t.

Two parts of the same story that one Gospel allaborates and another doesn't. Jesus was so weak after His beating that they took the cross from Him and made another carry it. The other one mentions how he carried the cross in passing.

In one Gospel bother crucified thieves mocked Jesus, in another one mocked him while the other defended him

Again, there is no contradiction, just different parts of the story emphasized. One author focuses on the ridicule of Jesus, the other on the salvation of the thief.

The wording on the Cross is different in every single Gospel
In three Gospels Jesus prayed to prevent the crucifixion, in one he does not.

One includes the prayer, the other doesn't. Remember that they aren't comprehensive but representative.

In one Gospel Mary immediately recognizes the risen Jesus and falls to worship, in another Gospel she mistakes him for a Gardener and fails to recognize him until he speaker her name

Not true. In one account is a shorthand version of the story and another allaborates the point.

In one Gospel when Jesus walks on water the Diciples worship Jesus praising him as the son of God, in another Gospel they were astounded but their hearts were hardened to the spectacle.

I'm not sure you are correct on this one, but show the reference and I'll prove it to be otherwise.

To truly understand these differences and the countless others, you really need to read the Gospels for yourself.

Or better yet, read to understand.

[MartialHorror]

Naoahs flood V Gilgamesh's flood.

I think if it did happen, that God destroyed the world slowly. Noah's area was done during his time. Gilgameshs's flood was the same during his time. God use the same divice to save them.

So basically God flooded the world one area at a time. Its possible. Others take the flood was a metaphor. The arc=Christ, who saves us from Gods wrath.

[Amra]

Thanks for the replies, I wil contest each one later, but my GF is hungry, so it will have to wait, And dont worry, everything stated can be rebuttled quite extensively :)

[notcomawhite]

Naoahs flood V Gilgamesh's flood.

I think if it did happen, that God destroyed the world slowly. Noah's area was done during his time. Gilgameshs's flood was the same during his time. God use the same divice to save them.

did you know that there is scientific proof that there was a large flooding at the time pointing out in the bible? ^_^ just thought it would be a useful fact o.0

may not be 'completely' relevant to this thread. =/

my views on the Bible might be a bit different. But i think most of it is metaphorical and has mistakes, after all, it was a human who wrote it right? I don't know about my actual views on God being 'all-powerful' though. It would be sort of hard to express my feelings since I don't have a very religious view on the world/death/life.

[Jack Bauer]

The Scriptures wrote the Bible and based their stories from all the accounts of everything that dealt anything with God. They were then revised during the Medivel(sp?) ages and that caused the translation errors.

The Bible to me is more a guide.

[MartialHorror]

did you know that there is scientific proof that there was a large flooding at the time pointing out in the bible? ^_^ just thought it would be a useful fact o.0

may not be 'completely' relevant to this thread. =/

my views on the Bible might be a bit different. But i think most of it is metaphorical and has mistakes, after all, it was a human who wrote it right? I don't know about my actual views on God being 'all-powerful' though. It would be sort of hard to express my feelings since I don't have a very religious view on the world/death/life.

Many disagree. It's debatable.

[Amra]

Many people think they can disprove the Bible but fail miserably. The reason is that their bias against the Bible goes against their own understanding of it. Since they don't want to understand it, that bias clouds their judgement.

In no way shape or form do they fail, they just come to a conclusion that you don’t support so you dismiss it as failure because it doesn’t convince you, that doesn’t make it any less valid. Just as your statement that they fail is baseless, stating personal opinions as generally accepted facts do not add credibility to your argument.

Translation "difficulties" don't disprove the Bible. You can still find the Bible in its original languages, otherwise you wouldn't even know these arguments.

It does however prove that the Bible is not protected by some form of divinity, and it is just as subject to earthly influence and manipulation as any other man written text. Many Christians imply that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God himself, and since translational errors DO exist, it immediately discounts the entire concept of Biblical infallibility, which must call into question how Christian denominations can preach based on a book that even you must admit is errant In comparison to the original text. You haven’t really contested anything.

First of all, it doesn't say in "one swing", it says one battle. Secondly, it wasn't David, it was one of his "mighty men". Thirdly, the manuscripts differ on this number, it is the same depending on which manuscript you have. In the end this difference is not really important to the truths that the Bible ascribes to.

2 Samuel 23: 8. These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11: 11. And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Same Bible (KJV) – Nuff Said. Look it up before you stick your foot in your mouth please ;)

This is another difference in manuscripts. If you follow one manuscript for both you'll get the same number.

2 Samuel 8:4. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

1 Chronicles 18: 4. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

Once again, taken from the same Bible (KJV), are you even looking these scriptures up or are all your assumptions this ignorant? If there are Bible that have repaired these scriptures, them then only once again demonstrates that translational errors prove the Bible isn’t infallible.
Actually you just made a direct lie here. They never claimed to have captured the city of Jerauselem. What happened was the King of Jerauselem went out with his army to attack Joshua and was defeated and captured. The the king was captured, but the claim about the city was never made.

Im starting to believe you have never read the Bible… seriously.

Joshua 10: 40. So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

Joshua 15: 63. As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.

Either you wipe everyone out and have thus ‘taken’ Jerusalem, or you were unable to drive out the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thus have NOT ‘taken’ Jerusalem… How is this a lie? It seems the only reason you even open your mouth so far is to change feet.

Of course man can change the Bible, which is why God warned multiple times NOT to change the book. As it is, translation errors don't equal writing and inspirational errors. If someone copies my homework wrong it doesn't mean I didn't have the right answer originally.

Thanks for admitting my point, but unlike the Bible your homework isn’t portrayed as divinely ordained and inspired. And while translational errors don’t always prove writing errors, they DO prove inspirational errors.

That's actually one of the biggest misconceptions out there. When you actually read the context you'll understand the meaning of each passage.

Once again you show you haven’t actually read the Bible. When I say blatant contradictions I am referring to the text used by American Christians to justify their stance, and even if they are solely due to translation, they are blatant, I have shown you some even just now above, you cant say they don’t exist, the best you can do is blame it on translation. If you want to believe it, that’s fine, but don’t spout off baseless allegations and provide no evidence.

This was said at the ninth hour, it was never claimed those were the last words.

Mark 15
34. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
35. And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
36. And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
37. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus says no other words between the time he “gave up the ghost” and when he asked why God had forsaken him, effective these are Jesus’ last words. The same is said in Matthew. Seriously, have you ever actually /read/ the Bible?

[Amra]

Number one, the diciples were all scattered at this point. Number two, they were not all near each other because they were afraid of being recognized. Number three, none of the gospels is meant to be the end-all of the actions of Jesus, they were representative of His actions and words

You add nothing to the debate here, but I will point out that the Gospels are all that we have to base our revelations of Jesus on, so it would seem fairly important that they coincide, which they don’t. If they are different perceptions of the same events, then they are just perceptions, they are then only personal opinions and cannot be regarded with any sort of religious authority.

These aren't two different deaths, they are two discriptions of the same act. No one would act as if a fall could kill you like that. He bought a field and hung himself and his blood fell in the field. Whether the field was named after the death or money is irrevelent.

That’s a logical fallacy, hanging people does not produce blood, and falling headlong onto something that causes your bowls to spill out cannot be two descriptions of the same event. Furthermore there are multiple contradictions here, in one account he casts the money away to the priests, you say he purchased a field, which is it? That is known as contradiction, and on top of all this, the reasoning behind the name of the field is only seemingly insignificant, but we are talking about the infallibility of the Bible, so every contradiction is valid, no matter how small.

This is actually not true. In John 5:31 (which is the correct reference), Jesus is referring to the fact that his power comes from God the Father, which you would understand reading the verses before it. In John 8:14 the Pharisees challenged Jesus and said He couldn't bear witness of Himself. His argument was that He knew who He was because He was God. So the two verses have nothing to do with bearing a witness to yourself at all.

Actually what you are referring to requires interpretation, I am simply taking the scriptures as they are written and showing them to you, and some like this one are easier to dismiss, but the error is still evident.

First of all, that's Paul, not Jesus. Secondly, the words are referring to two different things. Paul says in verse two that those who are spiritually mature should help those with a burden of sin. In verse five he is continuing his thought that no one should be so proud about their own work and should carry their own work.

Interpretation again, we are left to interpret context in this entire passage as it is not provided, I am looking at it literally, you are not. So, what you are saying is that while the scriptures do literally contradict each other, you can explain it away using interpretation, well of course you can, that’s why there are 1000 denominations of Christianity, because people get to interpret the words in any context they want when it is not provided. THAT’S the problem, and the reason I pointed this scripture out.

None of your examples hold water, so I guess you didn't "disprove" the Bible.

They did exactly as they intended, to show people that people can gather what they want from the scripture from interpretation, such as you exemplified ;)

When in the Old Testament does it not say that God is loving and when in the New Testament does it say God is not Jealous and Angry with the wicked? Its the same God in both testaments; there is no change.

The problem with your counter argument is that the events in the Bible speak for themselves, if what you say is true then there was no purpose to the Biblical timeline, as God could have saved millions of lives by sending Jesus back in the times of Moses, or even before the flood of the world… Since he did not we are left to assume why, obviously you are content to believe that God, in all his omniscience and omnipotence allowed millions and perhaps billions of people to die for little to no valid reasoning behind it… and then rectify this error by sending Jesus so that no more people had to die. Yes, extremely logical.

I don't know where you got this but God never said anything about never dying in these verses at all. You simply made that part up.

It’s a logical assessment, In Genesis 9 1-7, God does a couple things, first off he grants man the ability to eat all animals upon the earth, but also forbids blood and murder. These are the only laws Given to Noah, but they are laws, and thus must be considered Moral Legislation by God to enter Heaven.

Now, if we assume that Noah is in heaven, then we must agree that by following those laws he was found righteous in Gods eyes.

So, those laws, which are the only ones that everyone in the world is bound by because everyone is seed of Noah. We MUST assume that anyone who lives their life and follows that moral legislation knowingly or unwittingly, must be found righteous in Gods eyes. Even if they are a nomad tribeman from African jungles who has never even heard of the Bible.

But your right, this is an interpretation, but you have already attempted to use interpretation yourself to justify a stance, and here you are demanding literal references before you are willing to accept a stance, seems a but hypocritical If you ask me ;)

That's not true, either. The Bible defines a Christian as one who believes, through faith, in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an that one is then inhabited by the Holy Spirit. Evidence of a person being a Christian is if that person follows the Bible and obeys the commandments, which is why a Catholic is not a Christian.

The word Christian isn’t even in the Bible, I was pointing out semantics in this statement, as the term Christian is overused and not a clear definition of a particular theological stance as all denominations call themselves Christian. Commands for followers are not the argument, an understanding of the word Christian is the argument. You have a personal view of what the word means, but not everyone has the same stance, meaning it is unclear, you cannot debate that without sweeping generalizations like you used above.

That's laughable. The reason for this is that the world if full of idiots. Just like the great anime Naruto can give rise to many militant Sasuke nerds, the Great Book can give rise to many idiots who have no knowledge of what it really says. Anyone who actually takes the Bible for what it says can only disagree one very complex point, and even in that argument there is considerable agreement.

At least we agree that most people who pick up the Bible are idiots, but agreement on most but not all and firmly believing that stance demonstrates the very essence of what I am talking about. If the Bible was direct and provided only one single truth, there would be one single denomination.

That's your misunderstanding of the nature of what faith actually is used for. Faith allows you to believe in God, that's true, but faith also is needed for obedience, prayer, and any other spiritual act.

Secondly the existence of God is not "dependent" on anything. He exists whether we believe in Him or not. We believe in God by faith. If He proved His existance you would still need faith to follow through with that belief.

Romans 14: 23. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

1 Corinthians 4:2. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Ephesians 2: 8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Hebrews 11: 1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11: 6. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So by reading these various scriptures there are a couple things that can be gathered, first is that Faith is necessary, second is that the lack of faith is a sin and impossible to please God, this leaves you to conclude that without faith you must not be able to enter Heaven. Now, if God were to prove his existence, man would no longer have faith, as they would know which is beyond proof of evidence unseen, without faith Man wont enter heaven and God would have effectively disproved his existence to those he proved his existence to; because they will never reach heaven as they have no faith. While this is a complicated stance, it is Biblically attainable, and thus valid for me to add here.

That's one of your worst agruments, yet. God wrote the Bible for people who lived when they had no knowledge of these things we have today. These people had a hard enough time obeying the Bible when God was in front of them, let alone talking about refrigerators. It doesn't disprove the Bible when God doesn't refer to modern technology, and I don't even know how you could use that honestly.

I’m not even entertaining the possibility of God explaining the inner workings of future technology, I am referring to the scientific fallacies that the Bible contains, certainly God would have worded the Bible in a way that as technology came apparent they would not disprove scientific stances in the Bible. Read the whole argument, your mouth must taste like feet wrapped in leathery bacon at this point.

Please, man, your absolutely wasting my time if you aren’t going to provide a logical and quantifiable counterargument, your pretty much simply trying to dismiss what I say and provide no Biblical proof or reasoning behind your stance. However, at least you are more informed then the usual Christian, and took the time to respond and for that I thank you. :)

[Hidden Mist Demon]

"When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" - James 1:13

Doesn't this mean that God is omnibenevolent (all-good) because if He can't be tempted by evil He can only be good right?

"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27

" 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' " - Revelation 1:8

Doesn't this mean that God is omnipotent (all-powerful)?

"O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." - Psalm 139:1-4

Doesn't this mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing) or at least that He knows the future and that He also knows people's thoughts?

Now we got to the point:
IF God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent then why, for example, why does all that bad stuff happen to Job?

"Well of course God was testing his belief and his righteousness!" (He gave Satan the permission) But why did He have to test him in the first place if He is all-knowing? He would have known that Job really was a true believer. And if God actually knew he was indeed a true beliver then why did he test him?

"To prove Job's belief to Satan of course!" Well why did he have to prove it to Him? If he did it just for that then he isn't omnibenevolent (though He wouldn't be that in the case of testing his belief either) The fact that he allowed Satan to do these evil things to Job proves that God isn't omnibenevolent and/or omniscient.

And if we think about the real world and the starvation, genocides, weapons of mass destruction, and etc...Why does this happen if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? This is also known as Theodicy, the problem of evil. "Unknown are the ways of God!" and "It all leads to God's ultimate plan!" are the common explanations. Well if it all leads to His "ultimate plan" why doesn't he make that plan happen right now. I mean He is all-powerful for crying out loud, isn't he. And if he is in fact omnipotent and all the people in this world aren't happy and replete then He can't be omnibenevolent cause He holds all the power and He could make them all happy. Right? And He knows about their suffering if he is omniscient. So let's make this a clear presentation shall we:

"Facts":
1: God is omnipotent > He can destroy evil
2: God is omnibenevolent > He is against evil
3: God is omniscient > He knows about evil
4: There is evil in the world

Basically number four and 1,2,3 are contradictory so God cannot be all one, two, and three. He is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent or not omniscient and there is only one other possibilty and that is that He doesn't exist.

Some say that there is evil because God wanted humans to have free will and do what they want and that is why there's evil (because of humans) But God still made humans the way they are so couldn't He have made them moral creatures that do not commit crimes etc. Again if He couldn't do this He isn't omnipotent.

"Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " - Exodus 32:27

Here Moses tells these people to kill and he says that that is what God said. Isn't this a bit contradictory with Exodus 20:13 stating that "You shall not murder." (New International Version of Bible from Biblegateway.com. Also sometimes translated "Thou shalt not kill.") Of course Moses might have just been making this stuff up but then again aren't the first five books of the Bible "Books of Moses"? If Moses lied about God saying that would we have to discard the first five books of the Bible? That includes Genesis :D

I'll end this here but if something else comes to my mind I will continue to list reasons. I encourage everyone to try to crush my arguments! I think that the Christian God does not exist. Those are some of my reasons above. But this is strictly about whether the Bible is true so discuss (debate, fight) about it.


people need to believe their is a higher power cause they dont want to believe that someone dies and has nowere to go.

now let me just say this. if the bible is real (im saying if) then only the orig virsion would count to be true witch is the hebreaw. cause for all we know it was translated wrong.

[mgrace]

Is the bible truth.. Is anything truth....

It's all about what you perceive to be true.. Once you believe that the bible is true then when you read it you accept everything within the bible as truth.. If you are outside the circle and don't beleiev the bible to be truth then of course you will concider everything in the bible a lie.....


You may say is the Bible true.. My Answer YES.. It is the truth...

how did I reach that exception.. There were many ways

1. Historical Truth
2. Original academic truth.. Which means that the BIBLE is very accurate how it was in it's originally written..
3. FAITH...

In fact the reason I consider the bible to be truth is that GOD made me believe it...

[NU-KazeKage]

But if God is omnipotent we would not live in complete apathy in Eden. With His power he could do anything (even make us perfect instantly)

And with evil I was just referring to all the bad things that happen (eg starvation)
he COULD make us perfect but he gave us free will so we could choose what we wanted thus why were not perfect...and starvation isnt evil..someone causeing starvation is evil

[Hidden Mist Demon]

he COULD make us perfect but he gave us free will so we could choose what we wanted thus why were not perfect...and starvation isnt evil..someone causeing starvation is evil


but their is sapouse to be a thing in the end were the devil puts his mark on you and lets you eat and you go to hell with him but if you chose to go with god you get nothing to eat.(untill the whole thing is over) So are you saying god is evil cause he makes you starve till the whole thing is over?

[Amra]

That's actually not true. In Genesis 1, the earth was different at this time and had a pre-flood atmosphere, which was much more tropical earthwide. In Psalms it is making a metaphor about the power of God.

I’m not talking about the atmosphere on earth. I’m talking about the very composition of how the earth and sky is constructed. There is a very basic and primitive understanding behind it, best described by the following picture.

http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky_files/image013.jpg

This was the common understanding of the time period, and is further justified by other scriptures, the fact that God does not contest this obvious fallacy and explain extremely basic concepts like the earth floats in space means instead of telling Moses obvious lies shows that it was not God who explained the construction of the earth, which again brings into question the divinity of the Bible.

“Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth.” (Hebrews 1:10)
“The sun, moon, and stars were created only after "the earth" below was created.” (Genesis 1:9-18)
“Who hath established all the ends of the earth?” (Proverbs 30:4)
“He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.”
(Psalm 104:5)
“The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.” (Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30)
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?” (Job 38:4-6)
“For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them.” (1 Samuel 2:8)
“It is I who have firmly set its pillars.” (Psalm 75:3)
“Who stretched out the heavens...and established the world.” (Jeremiah 10:12)

The only time the Bible depicts the earth as moving is during an earthquake: “The earth quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling.” (2 Samuel 22:8)
“The earth quakes, the heavens tremble.” (Joel 2:10)
“I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place.” (Isaiah 13:13)
“There was a great earthquake...and the stars of the sky fell...as if shaken from a tree.” (Revelation 6:12-13)
This primitive understanding is also evident in the wording of many scriptures, that demonstrate man is the author of this scientific falsehood.

Job 9:7 - 7. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.

Should technically be “Which commandeth the earth to stop spinning"

Joshua 10:12 12. Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

Should once again command the earth, not the sun, as the sun does not move, the earth does.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 5. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The mention of seeing something "rise" or "set" could be disregarded depending on one's perspective, but speaking of the sun "hastening to its place" so that it may "rise there again," is not so easily explained away.

Judges 5:20 20. They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

Here it is examined that the stars move/course through the sky, once again we know this is not true, are stationary relative to our position. This all further elucidates the primitive understanding of Man, and not the divine explanation presented by an Omniscient God.

The water cycle is explained in the Bible, in Ecclesiastes. The passage you are referring to is celebrating the powers of God and how He has a store house of hail. It is simply referring to the times that God used the weather to judge the earth.

I will assume you are referring to Ecclesiastes 1:7

1:7. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
But It requires no great genius on the part of our ancestors to see that the oceans aren't filling to overflowing and that rivers continue to run. Tying the origin of rivers to their ending is one of two possible paradigms to see regarding the water cycle. Both are found throughout the ancient world, and, in fact, both are found in the Bible, the other is shown in Isaiah and directly contradicts your assumption about Ecclesiastes
Isaiah 55:10. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
Why dissemble on something so simple? From the earth's perspect the moon emits light, and it is a lesser light than the sun. This is not a "fallacy", its a difference in perspective.
Actually its cause and effect, your attempting to use a perspective to justify another perspective, while the reality is simply cause and effect.
The Bible says repeatedly how the earth is round and even says God seperated our sins "as far as the east is from the west". The four corners analogy has to do with a scroll map and how God will say to the entire earth. It is a metaphor, like sunset and sunrise.
Don’t confuse round with Spherical, you are talking two dimensional versus three dimensional, I have already demonstrated above that they thought the earth was round, but they did not know it was a sphere.
All of these claims are untrue. Hares chew grass, which was translated "chew cud" and have seperated feet or "hooves". Whether or not seeds die before sprouting is debatable since a seed could be seen as its own independent entity from which the plant emerges. Grass hoppers look like they have two arms and four legs if you look at them. The heart is simply the emotional center of a person, just like we say "I love you with all my heart" rather than "I love you with all the passages in my brain that refer to my emotions".
Separated feet /translates/ into hooves.. so once again we are back to translational errors (which I do not contest these to be, they might be) but again, that raises the question of the divinity of the Bible. Grasshoppers /look/ like they only have two arms and four legs…. And God for some reason couldn’t explain the difference. And the scripture about the heart is used in a literal context, not metaphoric.
That is actually untrue. Every civilization has a story of the flood and there is much evidence of a large worldwide flood. One is the amount of displaced fossils. There have been multiple fossils of fish on top of tall mountains. There have been multiple fossil graveyards, which is what you would expect as animals retreated from the flood. There is more evidence but this is a philisophical debate, not a scientific one.
Are you aware of HOW Mountains form? You DO realize that every mountain top was at once underwater right? Mountains form when land masses collide and force the land up as it has nowhere else to go. For this very reason it is no great feet to find marine fossils on mountain tops, and scientifically it should be expected. So you have proven nothing there. Furthermore, those fossils you mention are in sedimentary layers that predate the Bible by millions of years, not a few generations. And not every civilization has a disastrous flood story, even though technically most humans have lived near the shores for survival since the advent of life, so water related catastrophe should be more common then is recorded. Furthermore, if there ARE other civilizations with flood stories it would irrefutably prove the Biblical account to be errant and thusly the Bible errant because for those civilizations to have stories about a flood they must have survived the flood, meaning that it did not wipe out the entire world as mandated in the Biblical account. A catch 22 if you will.
That's a weak argument. First of all it would add validity to the story if there were corraborating stories.
That’s the point, the Biblical account is wrong if other civilizations survived the Biblical flood.
Secondly, by what basis would you give another civilization presidence over the biblical story except by a bias against the bible? The Bible's stories are always documented and detailed. Thirdly, the Bible's "stories" have been written down and preserved, which should also lend them some presidence over legends from other civilizations.
Naturally the story that was written first must have more authority I have already shown at what dates the Bible was written in comparison to when the Epic of Gilgamesh was written, and there isn’t really a question of which was written first, the Gilgamesh epic from ancient Mesopotamia, is perhaps the FIRST story ever written, so naturally it predates the Bible and MUST have more authority.
The stories of the flood only strengthen the flood's truth content. Think about it. If I told you I beat up eight guys, you may not believe it, even if I document their names and what they were doing and have it written down. But if all kinds of people have the same story and some details may get switched around but the main story always proves my story, eventuallly you would believe me.

The same with the flood. Additional stories are additional evidence.

Genesis 7: 21. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

Apparently not,

[NU-KazeKage]

The Bible cannot be truth because it promotes immoral behavior such as slavery, hatred and murder.

Lets see, there are plenty of examples but lets start small…

1 Samuel 15:3 - Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Exodus 21:7 - And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

II Kings 2:23-24 - And he went up from thence unto Bethlehem and he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them

There are actually a lot more, but I wanted to start small, this response will already be exorbitantly long as it is.

The Bible cannot be truth because there is not enough information contained to form anything other then a biased opinion.

There are many cases where the Bible performs atrocious actions, and there is no evidence provided to the reader as to how and why these people needed to be destroyed. The Amalekites are a perfect example, it is commanded to kill them, and not just the men, but the women, the children, the infants, even the animals. The problem is there is no information as to how and why this massive extermination is so vitally necessary.

When Moses goes to Canaan, he commands his people to eliminate everyone in their land, once again there is little to no justification as to why.

When the flood takes place, we are only told that the world had become wicked, and needed to be cleansed. But I cannot help to think about the world trade centers, where the Muslim extremists said the same thing about us, that we have become wicked and they needed to strike deep into the heart of the infidel. So the people in the trade center were punished for the sins of a few… even though they were innocent in our eyes. Can you see the correlation?

Later Moses is sent to Pharaoh to free his people, yet before Moses gets there, God hardens pharaohs heart, forcing them to endure 7 plagues, lose many lives and all the firstborn all because God hardened his heart, and yet we are suppose to blame the Egyptians even though they weren’t given a valid choice? There is no information why God hardened pharaohs heart.

Another example is the entire book of Joshua, most people know the story up to the point that the walls came tumbling down, but there is more, and there is very little justification for the next part of the story, but I wont explain more then that, if you are curious, read it.

The Bible cannot be truth because in it has changed in certain situations

Catholic Bible before the year 1964:
Ezekiel 34:16 I will seek that which was lost: and that which was driven away, I will bring again: and I will bind up that which was broken, and I will strengthen that which was weak, and that which was fat and strong I will preserve: and I will feed them in judgment.

After 1964:
Ezekiel 34:16,I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice.

Notice in the first example that it says “I will preserve”, while in the other example it says “I will destroy”. So which is it? Which translation is correct? The meaning is entirely different as well, it’s a pretty impacting change.

------------------------------------




I think I will stop here, my fingers hurt... lol.

Please Discuss. Post rebuttles, Add more examples, whatever you want. Im Game.

Also, I want to point out that my main purpose for taking the time to create these posts is that it will piss off a few Christians and make them want to actually read the Bible, if the Bible doesnt turn them into Athiests like it did most logical people, at the very least there will a few more educated Christians out there, something the Christian community desperately needs.

And when people are being thrown in the lake of fire i hope that saves you..any way the bible does have errors cause humans wrote it and passed it down in its original form it was probaly error free, but even with the errors you need to study it look up the orignal meanings youself stop taking small parts of the bible and look at the entire chapter not just one verse ..witch anti christians love to do and most importantly dont go into thinking im going to disprove it all, cause then you get anything out of it because youd be spiritually blinding your self..."i seek not to understand that wich i believe, but i beleieve in order to understand. This also i believe that unless i believe, i can not understand" ST Augustine-The ontological argument for God" this is one of the quotes that keeps me seeking God
dont mistake this as me hating you becuase i dont the first line is just to get your attention so you actually read this and not skip over it

[schism]

Eden never existed. Absolutely NONE of Genesis was written to be taken Literally.

Damn I love biblical discussions, everything possible can be explained away with "it's not to be taken literally, it's a metaphor!".

[All Things Evil]

Well since this question can only be answered with opinions/beliefs.So I will tell you that to me the bible is nothing more than a book.A very important hitorical book and very intertaining but it holds no religious value to me.Even if I believed that there was a god the bible to me is ludacris.Not bashing anyone just my opinion, I respect all religions.

[NU-KazeKage]

but their is sapouse to be a thing in the end were the devil puts his mark on you and lets you eat and you go to hell with him but if you chose to go with god you get nothing to eat.(untill the whole thing is over) So are you saying god is evil cause he makes you starve till the whole thing is over?
the mark of the beast comes after the rapture (all the believers are taken up) my view on it is if your still here its cause you didnt believe untill it was too lat and have to sufer a little to go to heaven now and when did i say God was evil

[Catterix]

Well since this question can only be answered with opinions/beliefs.So I will tell you that to me the bible is nothing more than a book.A very important hitorical book and very intertaining but it holds no religious value to me.Even if I believed that there was a god the bible to me is ludacris.Not bashing anyone just my opinion, I respect all religions.

I think you're the most intelligent and mature person I've seen in this thread. Sorry, I just had to say that! Finally, some sense!!

[Amra]

That's illogical for one reason: the Jews were hostile to christianity. If the Jews were able to prove Jesus didn't exist or didn't do what He said they would have been able to disprove it since the books were only written 20 years after His death.

Actually, I will have to reference an outside link to show you something.

Click Here (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20020301-000004.html)

I love how you say /ONLY/ twenty years as if it the human memory is somehow less fallible at twenty years then it is at even twenty days. Im sorry, but 20 years is far too long to be able to place any measure of credibility into the words therein, even if the memory is extremely vivid. It is psychologically understood that by such a time has passed, many things have lost their clarity, others have simply been lost and replaced with deductive reasoning, even though those filled in blanks have absolutely no real world reference and filled in based on our perceptions.

This isn’t a personal view, it’s a psychologically verified absolute, and there have been numerous studies and experiments to justify it. See above link.

That wouldn't stop it from being the truth. If things in the Bible were historically contradicted then that might be an argument.

Hardly, people wrote the book with person ideologies and perceptions, it was not written by an impartial group, meaning the contents are intentionally written to justify their stance, that doesn’t mean they aren’t based on actual events it means they are written from a biased perspective and haven’t taken into account geology, astrology, or human intuition, as most of the Biblical stories have been shown to be able to be explained through natural means that these people didn’t understand, not being able to explain something no longer means it was divine in nature.

Exactly how would you prove that a earthquake happened, not by the power of God, but geologically and that it was just "taken advantage of" and not caused?

I don’t have to, there are plenty of sources available where people have already done the research, you just are unwilling to search, and would prefer to remain ignorant, that doesn’t add to your credibility either.

Heres one study (http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/5/395)

The Bible says a Shout brought down the walls after a trumpet sound, you cant try and say It /could/ have been an earthquake, because the Bible specifically states that the shout is what caused the wall to fall.

Joshua 6:20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys

Note I left in the part about murdering the men and women and children and elderly, which served no true purpose and is another of those unjustified massacres with no justifiable evidence to support the action.

This argument is a weak one because if Jesus didn't exist then the apostles would have had zero sucess in witnessing in Jerauselem directly after His made up death.

That’s an assumption, there were a great many crucifixions, in which any one of them could have been used to spread such a story, especially since there were a great many other “saviors” performing miracles and such around the time this allegedly occurred. But that’s not the point of the argument, the point is there is no evidence of Jesus’ existence, yet there is existence of Jericho, something that happened long before… why is that? Surely recordkeeping would get better with time, not worse.

<continued in next post>

[Amra]

The following demonstrates to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have never read all the Gospel accounts, and if you have, you most certainly did not compare them, or you would not be so idiotic as to make the asinine assumptions in this next section.

That "story" is the same in all four gospels.

Mark 11: 7. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Matthew 21:7. And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Yep, exactly the same.

That's actually not even true. That account of Peter finding Jesus by revelation doesn't exist.

Matthew 16: 17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Your right, clearly it doesn’t exist.

That's because He met them twice. One was to follow Him, another to leave their business and follow him.

Matthew 4: 18. And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

John 1: 42. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. 43. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

What bible are your reading again?

Herod had a guilty conscience and thought Jesus was John the Baptist from the dead. That is the only account of it.

Mark 6: 16. But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

John 9: 9. And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.

Clearly he knew who it was both times…

Those were two different visits.
Mark 11: 11. And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. 12. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: 13. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. 14. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. 15. And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;

Matthew 21:10. And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? 11. And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. 12. And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

So why is there no account of him going to Bethany in Matthew? If they were two separate visits.

It was struck at once, and it withered overnight.

In Mark 11:20 your right, but Matthew things you’re a liar…

Matthew 21: 19. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Another fabrication by yourself.
Matthew 26: 48. Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. 49. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. 50. And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.

John 18: 3. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5. They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 7. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: 9. That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 10. Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? 12. Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

Yep, I just make this stuff up off top of my head…

Two parts of the same story that one Gospel allaborates and another doesn't. Jesus was so weak after His beating that they took the cross from Him and made another carry it. The other one mentions how he carried the cross in passing.


John 19:17. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Matthew 27:31. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. 32. And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.

Yes, I can see how they are both the same story elaborated, since they are so similar and all, missing just a small detail, like who actually carried the cross.

Again, there is no contradiction, just different parts of the story emphasized. One author focuses on the ridicule of Jesus, the other on the salvation of the thief.

Mark 15:32. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Luke 23: 39. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41. And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

These are hardly even similar accounts, much less emphasis on different parts of the story, either both thieves reviled him, or only one, not the same thing.

Not true. In one account is a shorthand version of the story and another allaborates the point.

Matthew 28: 6. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

John 20: 11. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12. And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Seems a bit more complicated then you claim.

I'm not sure you are correct on this one, but show the reference and I'll prove it to be otherwise.

Very Well.

Matthew 14: 33. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Mark 6: 51. And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. 52. For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.

Bet you cant do it without interpretation. :)

Or better yet, read to understand.

You always arrive at the conclusion you intend to when reading the Bible, so instead of trying to read it to understand you should probably just read it in the first place and let the book explain itself

[Amra]

And when people are being thrown in the lake of fire i hope that saves you..
I don’t need it to, I’ve read the Bible, the lake of fire is meant to purify, not condemn. Much the same as you purify a needle using a flame, the Bible uses fire to purify the soul. Not my personal view, but scripturally supported. Though this ideal does require interpretation (everything does when looking at Revelations)

any way the bible does have errors cause humans wrote it and passed it down in its original form it was probaly error free, but even with the errors you need to study it look up the orignal meanings youself
If you take the time to read my posts, you will find that most of them are well researched. But my entire post’s purpose is to point out that the English verion of the Bible contains errors, which you concur with, so my point is made. Since it is errant, it cannot be divine, at least not the English Bible.

stop taking small parts of the bible and look at the entire chapter not just one verse ..witch anti christians love to do
I would love to paste the entire chapter, but why waste the space, Christians need to elect to read it to its entirety themselves.

and most importantly dont go into thinking im going to disprove it all,
Of course not, Its apparent in your study of the original Bible in its original context you can provide no elucidation to us ignorant people who follow the adulterated English version.

cause then you get anything out of it because youd be spiritually blinding your self...
Of course… makes perfect sense.

"i seek not to understand that wich i believe, but i beleieve in order to understand. This also i believe that unless i believe, i can not understand" ST Augustine-The ontological argument for God" this is one of the quotes that keeps me seeking God
And so it shall, fancy dictation always makes me want to seek God. Its just too bad it’s a double negative, he is saying you need to only believe and understanding will make itself apparent without seeking understanding. He is basically saying you need to make yourself ignorant and just follow as you are commanded to, and understanding will come naturally. I can see how that is a great way to world peace. No wonder Christians haven’t read the Bible, much less the Koran or other religious texts.

dont mistake this as me hating you becuase i dont the first line is just to get your attention so you actually read this and not skip over it

Don’t worry, I know you don’t hate me, its not like the Christian faith would support such a ludicrous notion as hate…

[Hidden Mist Demon]

the mark of the beast comes after the rapture (all the believers are taken up) my view on it is if your still here its cause you didnt believe untill it was too lat and have to sufer a little to go to heaven now and when did i say God was evil

yes but im talking about the story that states you can get the mark of three 6's either on your head or hand if you chose the mark you get to eat if not you dont. i was stating this from a book that was lost from the bible. the bible had many books in it that were taken out by cathlicks because they do not want people to know this stuff and you can ask a preacher about this. like the story that was taken out of the bible that stated that jesus went to hell frist then went to heven. the stroy that states if you are bad and go to hell you only remain their for 3 years then go to heven(no matter what kind of sin you have comitted).

and as i have stated if you have any disbelieveing'ness you can ask a preacher or watch the history channel were it talks about this at times.

[Hidden Mist Demon]

the mark of the beast comes after the rapture (all the believers are taken up) my view on it is if your still here its cause you didnt believe untill it was too lat and have to sufer a little to go to heaven now and when did i say God was evil


and one more thing you need to know god created everything and good and evil is apart of everything

[Grrblt]

And with evil I was just referring to all the bad things that happen (eg starvation)
But how can you be so sure that God, if he exists, considers those things evil? You do, but in this case your human brain is fairly limited in comparison to God's omniwhatever mind and you probably don't see the whole picture. If God considers condition 4 to be false, then 1, 2 and 3 can still be true.

[Amra]

But how can you be so sure that God, if he exists, considers those things evil? You do, but in this case your human brain is fairly limited in comparison to God's omniwhatever mind and you probably don't see the whole picture. If God considers condition 4 to be false, then 1, 2 and 3 can still be true.

In the books Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy there are hundreds of laws, and since we are to assume that these are the laws given directly from God, then the breaking of these laws must be considered evil in the eyes of God. These laws were allegedly spoken to Moses directly from God, so they are divine in nature.

Now, after you get done reading those books, I want you to read up on history and current events, and then tell me that you can theisticly stand by your stance that the things that are happening are possible to NOT be considered evil by God.

The interpretation of what you believe God considers evil cannot be based on personal interpretation, what is or is not evil must be derived from the book that is supposed to be divine in origin, meaning the laws of the Bible must dictate what is evil in Gods eyes and what is Good in Gods eyes... Which means things like slavery, personally justified murder, bigotry, hatred, anger, are all NOT evil in Gods eyes. While things like spreading peace and accepting people who are different then you, and humping livestock ARE evil in Gods eyes.

[acritarch]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

That's a pretty good read attempting to justify "embarassing" or "contradictory" things in the Bible. I don't particularly agree with all of it, but it is another perspective.

I wish I had more time to respond, but teaching children gymnastics for 7 hours a day is hard work and am soooooo tired. :\ So all I have to offer is the skeptic's annotated Bible. I am impressive with your knowledge though Amra, if you did indeed type all that up. I've seen a lot of people copy and paste things before (not that it's any less valid), but the people that do that don't know much about it themselves and just hate religion or whatnot. If you really do know all of that then that's probably more than 99% of Christians... which is really sad on our part.

Have fun debating, and God bless. :P

[baconbits]

In no way shape or form do they fail, they just come to a conclusion that you don’t support so you dismiss it as failure because it doesn’t convince you, that doesn’t make it any less valid. Just as your statement that they fail is baseless, stating personal opinions as generally accepted facts do not add credibility to your argument.

You take my statement in the completely wrong way. They fail because they think they can disprove the Bible and they can't find anything that actually does disprove the Bible. This has nothing to do with my "opinion", it has to do with fact.

It does however prove that the Bible is not protected by some form of divinity, and it is just as subject to earthly influence and manipulation as any other man written text.

Actually it doesn't. All it proves is that Greek and Hebrew are hard to translate from.

Many Christians imply that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God himself, and since translational errors DO exist, it immediately discounts the entire concept of Biblical infallibility, which must call into question how Christian denominations can preach based on a book that even you must admit is errant In comparison to the original text. You haven’t really contested anything.

That its completely illogical. How does a translational error reflect back on the original document? If I translate your words into Spanish wrong, that would reflect on my translation, not your writing.

2 Samuel 23: 8. These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11: 11. And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Same Bible (KJV) – Nuff Said. Look it up before you stick your foot in your mouth please ;)

First of all, petty comments don't further your argument, they belittle it.

Secondly as I stated before this is a difference in manuscripts. One manuscript has it right, the other one doesn't. Either way this isn't a central issue or a doctrinal issue, its a numeral of battle figure, not a disproof of Biblical theology.

All you've done is found a copying error.

2 Samuel 8:4. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

1 Chronicles 18: 4. And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

Once again, taken from the same Bible (KJV), are you even looking these scriptures up or are all your assumptions this ignorant? If there are Bible that have repaired these scriptures, them then only once again demonstrates that translational errors prove the Bible isn’t infallible.

First of all, I never make ignorant assertions. If you want this to be an intelligent debate respect your opponent. Second of all, this has nothing to do with the infallibilty of scripture, it has to do with the fallability of scribes and translators when it comes to single digits in battle figures. Either way its not a major or even a minor change in the Bible. Most Bibles explain the difference in the margins: manuscript error.

Im starting to believe you have never read the Bible… seriously.

You say this after I corrected one of your erroneous references for you...

Joshua 10: 40. So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

Joshua 15: 63. As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.

Either you wipe everyone out and have thus ‘taken’ Jerusalem, or you were unable to drive out the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thus have NOT ‘taken’ Jerusalem… How is this a lie? It seems the only reason you even open your mouth so far is to change feet.

Ignoring the insult you simply have taken the verse out of context. I'll explain this for you:

[Amra]

You take my statement in the completely wrong way. They fail because they think they can disprove the Bible and they can't find anything that actually does disprove the Bible. This has nothing to do with my "opinion", it has to do with fact.

That makes no sense, in most cases of people trying to “disprove” the Bible, they are doing no such thing, you are only portraying it that way in an effort to make your point seem credible when it isn’t. They are in fact trying to challenge the divinity of the Bible, not the Bible itself, most people would agree that much of the Bible was based on fact, but what you are failing to realize is that it is a one sided biased opinion of real events, historically speaking people attributed victory in war to their God. Don’t forget that the winners write the history books, and many times the Israelites with no justification wiped out entire cities and civilizations, this left no one to tell the other side of the story. So why does God have the Israelites murder not only fighting men but women and innocent children as well? Witnesses.

Actually it doesn't. All it proves is that Greek and Hebrew are hard to translate from.

Sure, and as we learn, grow and better understand Greek and Hebrew, no one has ever thought to ‘re-translate’ into a more accurate text? Does that mean it’s already in the best translation? Or better yet, why didn’t God ‘lead’ the translator’s hand, as he 'directly spoke' to Noah. Maybe because it isn’t a divine book?

That its completely illogical. How does a translational error reflect back on the original document? If I translate your words into Spanish wrong, that would reflect on my translation, not your writing.

My words aren’t allegedly divine either. Translational errors prove irrefutably that God has no power to protect even his own Bible, so how then are we suppose to believe that things like Prayer do anything? If God can answer prayers then certainly he could lead translations.

Secondly as I stated before this is a difference in manuscripts. One manuscript has it right, the other one doesn't. Either way this isn't a central issue or a doctrinal issue, its a numeral of battle figure, not a disproof of Biblical theology.

All you've done is found a copying error.

Yes of course, an oopsy. Well, its apparent that God doesn’t mind a few oopsies in his book, since they are so prevalent.

You are failing the point, it shows the text is malleable, and that there is no divinity protecting it. You forget that these books were written in the times where God allegedly would play a more active role in history, so you are essentially saying he was too busy out murdering entire cities that he simply forgot to tap this guy on the shoulder and say “Hey, fix that please, don’t want people to think Im not divine or anything”

First of all, I never make ignorant assertions. If you want this to be an intelligent debate respect your opponent. Second of all, this has nothing to do with the infallibilty of scripture, it has to do with the fallability of scribes and translators when it comes to single digits in battle figures. Either way its not a major or even a minor change in the Bible. Most Bibles explain the difference in the margins: manuscript error.

Then they weren’t inspired, directed or lead by God, making the Bible a creation of man and not God, its really that simple.

You say this after I corrected one of your erroneous references for you...

You haven’t yet, you have only made excuses as to how and why they exist, completely ignoring the fact that they do exist and this is suppose to be a divine text. Else the entire religion is a waste if the book isn’t divine in nature. So actually you haven’t corrected anything, you have pretty much tried to make an excuse for it and dismiss it.

Ignoring the insult you simply have taken the verse out of context. I'll explain this for you:

This should be good.

And you are not without your clever repartee, Ive read some of your posts on this board so don’t play “Im the better one because Im not stooping to witty insults”.

At least your willing to debate, so I will try and be less.. abrasive. But you will have to do better then copying errors if you seriously want people to take you seriously, a truly divine book wouldnt be errant, not even translational, and certainly not the original manuscript.

[Vision]

But how can you be so sure that God, if he exists, considers those things evil? You do, but in this case your human brain is fairly limited in comparison to God's omniwhatever mind and you probably don't see the whole picture. If God considers condition 4 to be false, then 1, 2 and 3 can still be true.

It might be that God thinks that "Oh well, who cares about starvation" BUT if most humans think that starvation is bad (at least the ones that starve think so) then in his omnibenevolence (and he also knows about starvation if he is omniscient) he should erase starvation (he has the power to do so if he is omnipotent) It is bad for us so God should destroy that bad if he was omnibenevolent. It is as simple as that.

[Master Scorpion]

It might be that God thinks that "Oh well, who cares about starvation" BUT if most humans think that starvation is bad (at least the ones that starve think so) then in his omnibenevolence (and he also knows about starvation if he is omniscient) he should erase starvation (he has the power to do so if he is omnipotent) It is bad for us so God should destroy that bad if he was omnibenevolent. It is as simple as that.

Did you read bible? Have you understand bible and God's purpose?

Before the fall of the first humans Adam and Eve,they were both living in Eden without starvation.., and God already warned them for do not eating the fruit from the forbidden tree, and they both understood what God said.

But Satan tempted Eve as he said if she eats that fruit, she will become like a god, so she ate that fruit and giving it to Adam.. after that their eyes were opened, and hiding themselves from God's presence because they finally realized that they were naked.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

So because Adam and Eve made a mistake, God send them away from the garden of Eden to earth.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

We'll see that God is very strict with the rules,so until now, we have a disconect or break relationship with God.

Because of that, we are now living in this earth with the curse that we carry since we were in the womb, but God has promised to us that He will create a new earth wheres in that place we will never find starvation, pain, illness, and fear..,after the judgement of anti-Christ and his followers announced.

God may full of mercy, love, and power..but he is also fair and assertive with decision which he made.

I suggest you to read the Revelation

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."

[Vetrean]

Why does God have any sort of obligation to erase our suffering in a blink? We had Paradise, and gave that up. Why should he continue to keep us in perfection when we went against his commands just for knowledge?

We gave up Paradise. God has already provided it once; he'll provide it again at his own time. Not yours.

[Master Scorpion]

Why should he continue to keep us in perfection when we went against his commands just for knowledge?
The first humans were innocent and pure, they didn't know anything, until they ate the fruit from the forbidden tree.
And since that Cain the first son of Adam and Eve killed his younger brother Abel because of jealously.

Even though Adam and Eve the first humans against the rules, but God still loved them.. and helped them making clothes.

God has a gentle side, and also a firm side :P

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Like I said before that God very strict with the rules...

We gave up Paradise. God has already provided it once; he'll provide it again at his own time. Not yours.
You right about this. He has His own time.
God never pushed humans to do this and that since Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross, just look the difference between God's role in the old testament and the new testament.

I think this is the time for us to choose to follow Him or not..,thats the free will that God gives for us nowadays.

[Chazwind]

Basically, we live for God's purpose, for his glory, and thats it. He created us in the first place for his own glory, to love us, and he expects us to love him back. Thats what God wants from us.

According to Christian beliefs, they need to surrender to his will without question, live for his glory, and that way we will also free ourselves from our sins, greed,the devil, and in the end both God and men would be happy.

I think this is the main point of the bible, or all bibles for that matter, is suppose to tell people. Other than that, its all superficial.

[Hibino]

True or not, it's the massages and the moral that counts:)

[Vision]

Before the fall of the first humans Adam and Eve,they were both living in Eden without starvation.., and God already warned them for do not eating the fruit from the forbidden tree, and they both understood what God said.

But Satan tempted Eve as he said if she eats that fruit, she will become like a god, so she ate that fruit and giving it to Adam.. after that their eyes were opened, and hiding themselves from God's presence because they finally realized that they were naked.

So because Adam and Eve made a mistake, God send them away from the garden of Eden to earth.

We'll see that God is very strict with the rules,so until now, we have a disconect or break relationship with God.

Because of that, we are now living in this earth with the curse that we carry since we were in the womb, but God has promised to us that He will create a new earth wheres in that place we will never find starvation, pain, illness, and fear..,after the judgement of anti-Christ and his followers announced.


So God says not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree but tells Adam and Eve no reason for this nor does he tell them what the consequences of eating the afore mentioned fruit are. That is like saying "Don't push this big red button! I won't tell you anything about it." Humands tend to push it. And God knows that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit. He is supposed to be omniscient afterall! It sounds like a sick game of his.
And even if he didn't know (for an unknown reason) it doesn't matter that they broke his rule. If he was omnibenevolent he would still let them live in the paradise.
Moreover even if omnibenevolence and omniscience are not count God has still some explaining to do. I mean, isn't it almost like prejudice if he judges us all because of Adam and Eve. They made the mistake, not us.

[Amra]

Did you read bible? Have you understand bible and God's purpose?
Yes, and so have Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Angelical, Episcopalian, Nestorian, Protestant (which includes Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pietism, Charismatic, and Apostolic), Messianic Judaism, Restorationism, Mormon, Nontrinitarian (universalist), and even most Atheist and Agnostics. So, with each of these people being able to find a different ‘purpose’ how can you be certain that yours is the one true purpose? Do you somehow have more Biblical Understanding then the theologians who initiated these differing religions?

Before the fall of the first humans Adam and Eve,they were both living in Eden without starvation.., and God already warned them for do not eating the fruit from the forbidden tree, and they both understood what God said.
You must also accept for a moment that Adam and Eve had a childlike understanding. Any parent will concur, that when you tell a child NOT to do something, and then purposely place the object where they can get to it, the child WILL act upon the object, if for no other reason then curiosity. So since Adam and Eve were not aware of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ until after eating the fruit, how can you say they understood? Going by the Biblical account, God intentionally put the Forbidden tree in the Garden for the sole purpose of initiating the fall of man.

But Satan tempted Eve as he said if she eats that fruit, she will become like a god, so she ate that fruit and giving it to Adam.. after that their eyes were opened, and hiding themselves from God's presence because they finally realized that they were naked.
So if God is omniscient, how can one hide themselves from Gods presence? Was God just playing the fool?
So because Adam and Eve made a mistake, God send them away from the garden of Eden to earth.
This is actually wrong, the Bible is quite clear about the actual reason Adam and Eve were sent from the garden, and is wasn’t just because they had disobeyed God, they had already been punished for that.

Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Here is Gods punishment for eating the forbidden fruit. So why does God kick them out of Eden?

Genesis 3: 22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Here is the answer, since man suddenly has knowledge, he realizes that if he stayed in the Garden, he could eat from the tree of life and live forever, and man had already become like God, just as it states in this verse and just as Satan had claimed, so the only true difference between man and God from this point on is that God has eternal life, so in order for God to have power over man, there was only one recourse, to kick him out of Eden, not because they disobeyed God.

Not my personal belief, but it is a scripturally supported theistic standpoint, and as such is no more invalid then your position that God kicked them out of Eden for their disobedience, the difference is interpretation and perception. Personally I don’t think Genesis should be looked upon as anything other then a metaphoric book and the stories inside should be looked upon like parables, not historical accounts.
We'll see that God is very strict with the rules,so until now, we have a disconect or break relationship with God.
Not really, Man still made offerings to God, and God still played a very active role in mans life, how is this a disconnect? You are using this ‘disconnect’ as some sort of justification for building a ‘personal relationship with God’, but as such don’t forget that this is your own personal view and not scripturally supported.
Because of that, we are now living in this earth with the curse that we carry since we were in the womb, but God has promised to us that He will create a new earth wheres in that place we will never find starvation, pain, illness, and fear..,after the judgement of anti-Christ and his followers announced.
The sin of knowing right from wrong? If knowing right from wrong is a sin, then God is as well a sinner by this account. Yet you would not consider God a sinner, so why would you consider man a sinner? On top of this, Mosaic Law states that decedents should not be punished for the sins of the Father.

Ezekiel 18:20. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

So your entire argument is invalid, there cannot be some inherent curse that we carry from birth. Furthermore if you try and make the argument that that original Sin is sin of the flesh, and not the soul, then it once again becomes an irrelevant because the Bible states them separate.

Ecclesiastes 12:7. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

So in either case, your entire position is not scripturally supported. It sounds more like something that has been taught to you, and justified using only the scriptures that can be interpreted to support it, and none of them that directly contradict it.

God may full of mercy, love, and power..but he is also fair and assertive with decision which he made.
This is also a personal perception, One could easily ask why an an omni-benevolent creator whom has unconditional love would make a soul suffer an eternity of torment for generations simply for being born. That would make no sense.

I suggest you to read the Revelation 21:1
And I suggest you read Ecclesiastes and Ezekiel.
-------------
Why should he continue to keep us in perfection when we went against his commands just for knowledge?

You know, if you actually took the time to read the Bible you might not say such nonsense. Woman was intrigued that the fruit might give wisdom, but that isn’t why she ate it, it was pleasing to the eye and good for food, plus there was a serpent (which one must ask why it was in the Garden to begin with) that convinced her she wouldnt die by eating it, which she didnt, she only died because she couldnt eat from the tree of life because God kicked her out of the Garden, meaning she didnt die from the forbidden fruit, she died because she ate it, an important distinction.

We gave up Paradise. God has already provided it once; he'll provide it again at his own time. Not yours.

We didn’t give it up intentionally. He also provided a serpent and tree that caused our fall. Assuming he didn’t set up the fall in the first place. I don’t care.
-------------

And since that Cain the first son of Adam and Eve killed his younger brother Abel because of jealously.
That’s because God showed favor on Adam even though Cain’s sacrifice was also the best of the best of his crop. They both did what they did best, and took their absolute best out of their harvest and offered it God, and God still showed favor to Adam instead of equal favor. Most would agree this was unfair, as anyone who has toiled even just a small garden can imagine the amount of hard work and effort that would go into sowing and reaping an entire crop. Shepherding is by far the less intensive of the two, and despite this, they were not treated equally. This was simply because Adams sacrifice was a blood sacrifice. His jealousy was more then justified, his actions however were not. This as well flies in the face of God being just and fair.
God never pushed humans to do this and that since Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross, just look the difference between God's role in the old testament and the new testament.
First off, how is providing the tree and serpent in the first place NOT the same as pushing humans to eat the fruit?
Secondly Gods role hasn’t changed, peoples perceptions of Gods role is what has changed, the Bible states that God doesn’t change, and I have already argued the topic of Old Testament philosophy versus New Testament philosophy if you take the time to read this thread ;)

I think this is the time for us to choose to follow Him or not..,thats the free will that God gives for us nowadays.
What pray tell makes this time any different then any other time? Curious, because I think this will prove a pivotal point about your beliefs.

[MartialHorror]

lol, everyone says "He provided the tree", blah,blah.

There is a movie called "Two for the money" in which a husband is basically testing his wife to see is she would sleep with his friend by pushing them together,ect. It appears she does sleep with him and she accuses him of "Offering her on a silver platter" and he responds "Well he wasn't supposed to take it"

So who was to blame? The husband or the wife? Well, matter of fact is, the wife(supposedly; er, see the movie. Or don't, it wasnt that good) would have been the one to sleep with him. THerefore, she is at fault. She would have been weak.

So same reason with God and man. It was man who brought their own downfall, not God. Oy, this is why humanity is so messed up. We blame another source instead of our selves.

This is funny because I hear people attack religion for "Placing the blame...", when in fact, religion heavily imposes its our own damn fault.

That's all those people are doing who blame religion, placing the blame.

Do we blame Islam for the 9/11 attacks, or the terrorists themselves? Islam was their foundation for doing so.

It was humanity who chose its path, God just let us fall.

Another example, in an episode of Judge Judy(lol, my Mom loves the show) this mother basically let her son screw himself over by giving into a faulty deal with some car. He had to learn.

[RLTTJM]

The Bibles True Now STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU

[Amra]

One major flaw in your statements Martial Horror.

Biblically speaking, man prior to eating the fruit had no concept of "right" and "wrong", meaning its more akin to telling a 1.5 year old "Dont eat this delicious tasty candy bar" and putting it on the table next to them. You already know ahead of time they are going to eat it, but you put it there anyay, who is to blame, the child for eating it or the parent for putting it there?

You see, people on Judge Judy and people in movies. or even the attacks of 9/11 have been made using a clear definition of moral behaviour based on personal decisions about "right" and "wrong", this isnt the case with Adam and Eve. This is a very important difference, especcially if you consider God being all-knowing knew that putting the tree in the Garden would cause these events to occur.

If however you are instead trying to argue that they had a logical thought process of right and wrong before they ate the fruit, which would be nesseccary for your examples to be valid, That is fine by me, except it would once again prove the Bible errant.

The Bibles True Now STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU


You sound confident, so would you mind providing evidence? Or are you just trying to increase your postcount? Oh wait, I see that you are only 10 years old... never mind. Wonder if your parents know you are online cursing.

[MartialHorror]

There was no sin.

Sin does not always mean wrong.

It's wrong to throw your trash on the street, not a sin.

Eve chose sin by disobeying God. Before then, there was no reason to sin. But they fell into temptation.

Edit: For the record, I don't really think the tree of knowledge contained knowledge in itself. I think it was basically God testing them by telling them dont eat from the tree. Sinning itself was what gave them knowledge of good and evil.

[Amra]

Genesis 3: 22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Once again, until they had eaten the fruit, they had no understanding of Good and Evil, which is what moral decisions such as disobedience is based upon, meaning they had no understanding of doing things that are 'wrong', like disobeying God by eating the fruit.

So then if it was a test, it was not a test of whether or not people would disobey, it was more a test of whether objects with no concepts of right and wrong, which are based on good and evil, would be capable of falling into temptation, once again supporting the idea that God set the whole thing up, which once again makes the Bible errant.

[Chazwind]

Do we blame Islam for the 9/11 attacks, or the terrorists themselves? Islam was their foundation for doing so.

dude, you just gave more support to the contrary.

If Islam is the foundation for the terrorism, then its equivalent to saying God is the foundation towards our downfall, since he's responsible for our capabilities.

[Vegitto-kun]

dude, you just gave more support to the contrary.

If Islam is the foundation for the terrorism, then its equivalent to saying God is the foundation towards our downfall, since he's responsible for our capabilities.
The koran never said "go out and kill innocent people" sure it said to spread the believe but never "go kill", terrorist leaders just warp the koran so they can pretty much brain wash them by promising them the "paradise" with virgins.

I personnaly don't believe in the bibble because

1.first generations were passed on orally making it possible for it to have changed
2. the church can change
3. I think that the church added the anti gay in the 16th century not sure though, its a looong time ago that I heard about it
4. Its a 2000 year old story which could easily be manipulated and changed over the years

I follow one thing "be good for other people" which is something people forget when they go out insulting and hurting gays or other religions

[MartialHorror]

Genesis 3: 22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Once again, until they had eaten the fruit, they had no understanding of Good and Evil, which is what moral decisions such as disobedience is based upon, meaning they had no understanding of doing things that are 'wrong', like disobeying God by eating the fruit.

So then if it was a test, it was not a test of whether or not people would disobey, it was more a test of whether objects with no concepts of right and wrong, which are based on good and evil, would be capable of falling into temptation, once again supporting the idea that God set the whole thing up, which once again makes the Bible errant.

No, listen and listen carefully.

Why did they win sin? Because they followed God in EVERYTHING.

What God says, in Christianity, is what is right and is not sinning.

The fact they went against Gods word was what made them sin.

Edit: Islam is what they did it in the name for but the Koran does not support such acts. Ironically, I found this out from osama bin laden, who said that in responce of being accused for 9/11 at first.

Edit again: On tree of life, perhaps that was just evil without the knowedge of good. Christian theology has our souls as immortal, and when you go to hell, you're there for eternity.

[Amra]

No, listen and listen carefully.

Why did they win sin? Because they followed God in EVERYTHING.

What God says, in Christianity, is what is right and is not sinning.

The fact they went against Gods word was what made them sin.


Evidence Please.

So then you would say that the child who ate the candy bar was the sinner, not the parent for putting it there. Thats fine, noones contesting that, but that is a perception, no different then what you have stated above, and since its a perception, its not supported Biblically.

First off you must define sin, which is generally defined as a morally wrong act, and since morals are based off of the knowledge of right and wrong, then Adam and Eve couldnt have sinned.

Furthermore, Sins according the the bible can only fall into two catagories, Mortal sins, where someone was aware what they were going to do was a sin and committed it anyways, and Venial sins, where the person was not aware that their actions were a sin, which the act of eating the apple would fall under. These sins (according to the Bible) do not make a person fall from grace because they have not rejected God, meaning God would not have kicked them from the Garden if this were the case.

Small Explination of Venial/Moral Sin (http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm)

[demonhunter007]

The koran never said "go out and kill innocent people" sure it said to spread the believe but never "go kill", terrorist leaders just warp the koran so they can pretty much brain wash them by promising them the "paradise" with virgins. actually, i have spoken to a college professor who has personally read the koran and he said that the koran said to try to convert the infidel. if the follower should fail to convert the infadel, he was to kill him. now the terrorist did take this in the wrong way, because they just skipped strait to the killing.
just my own insertion: in the bible it discusses the destruction of sodom and gamora. (im not sure the exact location in the bible). notice that the base root of the word sodomy is sodom. it was named this because of the city of sodom. in the city, homosexuality was rampant, and in one verse, a group of men gathered at another man's house who was hosting guests, (who in actuality were angels) and asked to have sex with them. thus the origin of the word sodomy. anyway, back on topic. in the bible, the cities were destroyed by fire from heaven. a few years ago, scientists found remains of the city of sodom. ashes and marks of a huge conflageration was everywhere, but there was no evidence of any volcanic activity in that area. now this does not necessarily prove the presence of an omnipotent diety, but it does lend some credence to the bible.

[RockLeeGarra]

You guys have a many points. But the reasone god has to test us and told pepole to mudder pepole is because he want to test our loyta to him.

[RockLeeGarra]

You guys have a many points. But the reasone god has to test us and told pepole to mudder pepole is because he want to test our loyta to him.

[MartialHorror]

Evidence Please.

So then you would say that the child who ate the candy bar was the sinner, not the parent for putting it there. Thats fine, noones contesting that, but that is a perception, no different then what you have stated above, and since its a perception, its not supported Biblically.

First off you must define sin, which is generally defined as a morally wrong act, and since morals are based off of the knowledge of right and wrong, then Adam and Eve couldnt have sinned.

Furthermore, Sins according the the bible can only fall into two catagories, Mortal sins, where someone was aware what they were going to do was a sin and committed it anyways, and Venial sins, where the person was not aware that their actions were a sin, which the act of eating the apple would fall under. These sins (according to the Bible) do not make a person fall from grace because they have not rejected God, meaning God would not have kicked them from the Garden if this were the case.

Small Explination of Venial/Moral Sin (http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm)

Think about it. Why did they sin? Because they went against Gods word. What God considers wrong and what humans consider wrong are often different. If an atheists doesnt think premarital sex is wrong, is it wrong if Christianity is correct?

God basically said what is right and wrong. What is sinning. They went against Gods word, they sinned.

And yes, if the child was told not too, and they get into the cookie jar or whatnot, they should be punished so they won't do it again.

[demonhunter007]

what is sin? this is a very common question. most people view sin as an act that is morally wrong. now lets say a man kills someone. that was morally wrong, and thus a sin. however, lets say he killed someone while he was at war, a war taking place in his own country. he was defending his country, and his loved ones from harm. so was his killing a sin? that is debatable. in my personal opinion, a sin is not so much an a morally wrong act, but rather when one does not follow the will of god. god is the ultimate determiner of sin, so therefore, his will is the ultimatum that we must follow to avoid sinning.

[Amra]

Actually demonhunter, that’s the difference between killing a person and murdering a person, killing a person is completely and totally condoned in the Bible, I have provided many examples in this thread of people killing but not murdering. The commandment pertains only to murder.

Martial Horror, the question was originally that you told your child not to eat the chocolate and intentionally put the chocolate near him, in such a case the parent is intentionally bringing the child’s attention to the chocolate, and secondly is goading the child to eat it by telling them it is tasty and delicious, and since the child is only 1 and a half years old, there is no way it has developed a clear understanding of morality and cannot competently make a decision knowing it is wrong to eat the chocolate. Yet you would still blame the child… I find this interesting, though I am also wondering if you are only saying so because you need to stand by your assertion about the Bible.

God never said what was right or wrong to Adam, let me bring your attention to the Bible once again for a second.

Genesis 2:16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is not an explanation of right and wrong, it is simply a command given to someone who doesn’t even understand the difference between right an wrong, much the same as a command to a child. You have yet to provide any viable defense for the Bible, and have yet to support your contention using the Bible. You have implied that they sinned, yet only can provide your perceptions as evidence… that’s is insufficient when trying to prove legitimacy of Biblical scripture.

Furthermore, note that it says “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” This is technically a direct lie on Gods part, as Adam did not die on the day of eating the fruit. He died nine hundred and thirty years later.

[MartialHorror]

Actually demonhunter, that’s the difference between killing a person and murdering a person, killing a person is completely and totally condoned in the Bible, I have provided many examples in this thread of people killing but not murdering. The commandment pertains only to murder.

Martial Horror, the question was originally that you told your child not to eat the chocolate and intentionally put the chocolate near him, in such a case the parent is intentionally bringing the child’s attention to the chocolate, and secondly is goading the child to eat it by telling them it is tasty and delicious, and since the child is only 1 and a half years old, there is no way it has developed a clear understanding of morality and cannot competently make a decision knowing it is wrong to eat the chocolate. Yet you would still blame the child… I find this interesting, though I am also wondering if you are only saying so because you need to stand by your assertion about the Bible.

God never said what was right or wrong to Adam, let me bring your attention to the Bible once again for a second.

Genesis 2:16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is not an explanation of right and wrong, it is simply a command given to someone who doesn’t even understand the difference between right an wrong, much the same as a command to a child. You have yet to provide any viable defense for the Bible, and have yet to support your contention using the Bible. You have implied that they sinned, yet only can provide your perceptions as evidence… that’s is insufficient when trying to prove legitimacy of Biblical scripture.

Furthermore, note that it says “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” This is technically a direct lie on Gods part, as Adam did not die on the day of eating the fruit. He died nine hundred and thirty years later.

Actually demonhunter, that’s the difference between killing a person and murdering a person, killing a person is completely and totally condoned in the Bible, I have provided many examples in this thread of people killing but not murdering. The commandment pertains only to murder.

Martial Horror, the question was originally that you told your child not to eat the chocolate and intentionally put the chocolate near him, in such a case the parent is intentionally bringing the child’s attention to the chocolate, and secondly is goading the child to eat it by telling them it is tasty and delicious, and since the child is only 1 and a half years old, there is no way it has developed a clear understanding of morality and cannot competently make a decision knowing it is wrong to eat the chocolate. Yet you would still blame the child… I find this interesting, though I am also wondering if you are only saying so because you need to stand by your assertion about the Bible.

God never said what was right or wrong to Adam, let me bring your attention to the Bible once again for a second.

Genesis 2:16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is not an explanation of right and wrong, it is simply a command given to someone who doesn’t even understand the difference between right an wrong, much the same as a command to a child. You have yet to provide any viable defense for the Bible, and have yet to support your contention using the Bible. You have implied that they sinned, yet only can provide your perceptions as evidence… that’s is insufficient when trying to prove legitimacy of Biblical scripture.

Furthermore, note that it says “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” This is technically a direct lie on Gods part, as Adam did not die on the day of eating the fruit. He died nine hundred and thirty years later.

1) Child must be taught that getting into it is bad. If we blame the parents, then the child will grow up thinking that way.

2) As I said, the reason why Adam and Eve never sinned because they always listened to God. You say they had the mentality of a child. I disagree. They only lacked the knowledge of good and evil. For all we know, they could have had the minds of scientists, they just had no reason to murder. Why? God never told them. But he did tell them do not eat from the tree. They knew what was right because God told them what was right. They went against his word and was punished for it. Also, keep in mind, they had the intention of keeping it that way. It was until the devil used deciet to cause them to give into temptation.

3) Wrong, many people think that Adam and Eve would have never died. If they ate from the tree and brought sin into the world. Then death would have come with it(Sin and death are often used together). So in the long run, Adam did die. God did not say when.

[tmmyc]

So God says not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree but tells Adam and Eve no reason for this nor does he tell them what the consequences of eating the afore mentioned fruit are. That is like saying "Don't push this big red button! I won't tell you anything about it." Humands tend to push it. And God knows that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit. He is supposed to be omniscient afterall! It sounds like a sick game of his.
And even if he didn't know (for an unknown reason) it doesn't matter that they broke his rule. If he was omnibenevolent he would still let them live in the paradise.
Moreover even if omnibenevolence and omniscience are not count God has still some explaining to do. I mean, isn't it almost like prejudice if he judges us all because of Adam and Eve. They made the mistake, not us.
The Tree of Knowledge is a testiment to humankind's God-given free will. Humans have the free will to either choose to follow God, or choose to not follow God. Without the existence of the Tree of Knowledge, humans would not have the option to not follow God, and hence no free will.

If there are select humans who choose not to follow God, then how is it unfair for God to give them what they choose? Hell is described is a place where God isn't. If you think it's bad in a place where God is present (i.e. Earth), imagine a place where God is absent (i.e. Hell).

[Amra]

1) Child must be taught that getting into it is bad. If we blame the parents, then the child will grow up thinking that way.

Children don’t even realize they are a separate entity until they are two, hence the ‘terrible twos’. This is around the time when a child realizes that they can perform their own actions, and make their own decisions. This is why it is religiously considered the age of accountability. Up to that point punishing a child is almost moot and does not teach the child anything, as they don’t realize they did anything wrong much less realize why they are being punished.

2) As I said, the reason why Adam and Eve never sinned because they always listened to God. You say they had the mentality of a child. I disagree. They only lacked the knowledge of good and evil. For all we know, they could have had the minds of scientists, they just had no reason to murder. Why? God never told them. But he did tell them do not eat from the tree. They knew what was right because God told them what was right. They went against his word and was punished for it. Also, keep in mind, they had the intention of keeping it that way. It was until the devil used deciet to cause them to give into temptation.

I say they had the mentality of a child because they could not rationalize their actions based on good and evil. Every decision we make is rationalized based on the knowledge of good and evil, from throwing our trash on the ground, to scientific research. Without this mechanism and accepting the fact that Adam and Eve had not been alive more then one chapter, their experiences could not have been so vast to compensate for their lack of understanding of good and evil. So, there is literally no way around them being naïve and lacking the capacity to understand their actions, for God to punish them for this is unjust, and should be more unjust when you consider the questionable nature of the circumstances around the events.

The Bible is only thing we can use to gather information about this topic, and so either of our stances are still perceptions of the scripture, and neither of us could entirely justify out stance without interpretation or perception. I am simply trying to look at text in a basic literal context and so my point is to show that most of Genesis is infeasible, and should NOT be taken literally, unfortunately the Bible leaves far too much to be interpreted by the reader, which is most likely done on purpose.

3) Wrong, many people think that Adam and Eve would have never died. If they ate from the tree and brought sin into the world. Then death would have come with it(Sin and death are often used together). So in the long run, Adam did die. God did not say when.

Genesis 2:16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die…

I don’t think I need to emphasize how direct that is.

[Vegitto-kun]

actually, i have spoken to a college professor who has personally read the koran and he said that the koran said to try to convert the infidel. if the follower should fail to convert the infadel, he was to kill him. now the terrorist did take this in the wrong way, because they just skipped strait to the killing.
just my own insertion: in the bible it discusses the destruction of sodom and gamora. (im not sure the exact location in the bible). notice that the base root of the word sodomy is sodom. it was named this because of the city of sodom. in the city, homosexuality was rampant, and in one verse, a group of men gathered at another man's house who was hosting guests, (who in actuality were angels) and asked to have sex with them. thus the origin of the word sodomy. anyway, back on topic. in the bible, the cities were destroyed by fire from heaven. a few years ago, scientists found remains of the city of sodom. ashes and marks of a huge conflageration was everywhere, but there was no evidence of any volcanic activity in that area. now this does not necessarily prove the presence of an omnipotent diety, but it does lend some credence to the bible.
Some of my teachers and all my muslim friends say the opposite thing.

You cant really know what happened at that city, how old was it anyway? it might of just burned down ages ago or something .

I personnaly wont follow the bible apart from the "being good for other people" bit because the bible isn't made by god but by normal people The bible wasn't made by jesus nor god, so the people who wrote it could change the story if they wanted it.

For example the walking on water thing, hell it might of been jesus walking on ice but the writers decided to overdo it

[MartialHorror]

Children don’t even realize they are a separate entity until they are two, hence the ‘terrible twos’. This is around the time when a child realizes that they can perform their own actions, and make their own decisions. This is why it is religiously considered the age of accountability. Up to that point punishing a child is almost moot and does not teach the child anything, as they don’t realize they did anything wrong much less realize why they are being punished.



I say they had the mentality of a child because they could not rationalize their actions based on good and evil. Every decision we make is rationalized based on the knowledge of good and evil, from throwing our trash on the ground, to scientific research. Without this mechanism and accepting the fact that Adam and Eve had not been alive more then one chapter, their experiences could not have been so vast to compensate for their lack of understanding of good and evil. So, there is literally no way around them being naïve and lacking the capacity to understand their actions, for God to punish them for this is unjust, and should be more unjust when you consider the questionable nature of the circumstances around the events.

The Bible is only thing we can use to gather information about this topic, and so either of our stances are still perceptions of the scripture, and neither of us could entirely justify out stance without interpretation or perception. I am simply trying to look at text in a basic literal context and so my point is to show that most of Genesis is infeasible, and should NOT be taken literally, unfortunately the Bible leaves far too much to be interpreted by the reader, which is most likely done on purpose.



Genesis 2:16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die…

I don’t think I need to emphasize how direct that is.

The day they started to eat it, they began to die. They seeled their fate.

Tmmyc said it better than I did.

[Geg]

Lots of threads on religion (specifically Christianity) on this forum.

I'd like to believe the Bible is 100% true. I'd like to, but it's very hard to do so a lot of times. The real truth is, despite popular belief, the Bible is really more good than bad. The Bible is in its most basic form an instruction book for life that also contains several stories which may or may not be true. The bad part is that it also says "Tell the good news" (or something to that effect) which some people often translate to "Shove a bible in their face until they suffocate".

edit: Furthermore, note that it says “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” This is technically a direct lie on Gods part, as Adam did not die on the day of eating the fruit. He died nine hundred and thirty years later.
Eh, there are differences in translation. My translation says "If you eat this fruit, you are sure to die." No mention of days.

[Robotkiller]

It's a proven fact that stories have been added to the bible by scribes, who would copy down the texts (since they didnt have printing presses back then) and change some minor things.

"Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone" was not in the original Biblical scripture, therefore I belive the bible to be a very human book.

Though it's not without its lessons.

[Geg]

Would you mind citing that? I'm curious.

[Robotkiller]

Would you mind citing that? I'm curious.
I actually learned it from a book called Misquoting Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/104-8454855-2650341?v=glance&n=283155), it's a very interesting read from one of the worlds leading biblical scholars.

[Takuza]

Bible was written by apostles and the prophets that God chosen and not by ordinary people. Don't be blind by false theory which has been invented by logic and not by spritual views.



I should but that in my sig just because it lacks sense.

[tmmyc]

I actually learned it from a book called Misquoting Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/104-8454855-2650341?v=glance&n=283155), it's a very interesting read from one of the worlds leading biblical scholars.
Here (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000) is a review of Misquoting Jesus by another bible scholar. Rather than directly attacking the book, the author of the review explains some details left out or exaggerated by the book and questions the purpose behind the writing of the book.

Here is a portion of his concluding paragraph:
I grieve for what has happened to an acquaintance of mine, a man I have known and admired—and continue to admire—for over a quarter of a century. It gives me no joy to put forth this review. But from where I sit, it seems that Bart’s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right. Bart Ehrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I’ve ever known, and yet his biases are so strong that, at times, he cannot even acknowledge them.

[Robotkiller]

^
I could quote a review that stated the opposite, but that doesnt change the fact that facts are facts.

[Amra]

I grieve for what has happened to an acquaintance of mine, a man I have known and admired—and continue to admire—for over a quarter of a century. It gives me no joy to put forth this review. But from where I sit, it seems that Bart’s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right. Bart Ehrman is one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I’ve ever known, and yet his biases are so strong that, at times, he cannot even acknowledge them.


Effectively saying...

"How dare anyone believe something that is contrary to what I believe, and since no true honest and rational person in the world could possibly come to a conclusion that differs from mine, he must be wrong."

His review is equally if not more biased then the original author of the text. In fact I am inclined to believe, based on the presentation, that his contentious review is based in jealousy (as this was his friend and his friend made a fair amount of money from this book) and not religious fact. His arguments against the book are flaccid; most are not even aimed at the content, instead the best he can do is attack the presentation of the content. This pretty much makes his review worthless.

[tmmyc]

^
I could quote a review that stated the opposite, but that doesnt change the fact that facts are facts.
The review was merely for your own information to verify these "new found" facts by a secondary credible source. Both are biblical scholars discussing the same texts in question.

Effectively saying...

"How dare anyone believe something that is contrary to what I believe, and since no true honest and rational person in the world could possibly come to a conclusion that differs from mine, he must be wrong."

His review is equally if not more biased then the original author of the text. In fact I am inclined to believe, based on the presentation, that his contentious review is based in jealousy (as this was his friend and his friend made a fair amount of money from this book) and not religious fact. His arguments against the book are flaccid; most are not even aimed at the content, instead the best he can do is attack the presentation of the content. This pretty much makes his review worthless.
More biased than the original author? How were you able to determine this without first reading the original author's book?

[Amra]

I have, but I was not referring to the original authors works, I was referring to the review, which is blatantly biased through opinion, making his point about the bias of the original text superfluous, and consequently more biased because it was not based on fact.

A better book in my opinion, is "Living Buddha, Living Christ", which shows the many correlations of Jesus' teachings with the teachings of the Buddha, Particularly when referencing heretical texts like the Gospel of St. Thomas.

[tmmyc]

I have, but I was not referring to the original authors works, I was referring to the review, which is blatantly biased through opinion, making his point about the bias of the original text superfluous, and consequently more biased because it was not based on fact.

A better book in my opinion, is "Living Buddha, Living Christ", which shows the many correlations of Jesus' teachings with the teachings of the Buddha, Particularly when referencing heretical texts like the Gospel of St. Thomas.
Any unfactual biased opinions from the review regarding the texts you would like to share?

[Amra]

I promised an explanation of why the review is extremely biased, so here it is.

The review in question is Here (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000)

Lets start with the fact that the title is nothing more then a Dig at the author. Personal bias.

Now let’s look at the first paragraph. The author immediately starts his review by pointing out the successes of the book. As he does this you will notice that he specifically states that “The tedious details are not the stuff of a bestseller”, yet then shows that this book was a bestseller, then concludes with “Not bad for an academic tome on a “boring” topic!” This is a dig at the book, alleging that it doesn’t deserve its status because it is not worthy of being a best seller and is based on a boring topic.

In the very next sentence the reviewer attributes its success not to the author for being able to present “boring” material in an engaging way, he attributes it to Jesus and controversy, another Biased personal opinion.

He then alleges that the title does not present its claims, that there aren’t actually any examples of “saying of Jesus”, which is once again an insult to the book and not based in fact, the phrase “misquoting Jesus” can be inferred many ways, only one of which is relates to the reviewers assumption. Its more about people who, by manipulation and revision, have changed the core intent of the new testament, which is the very premise of people who misquote Jesus to serve their own perceptions.

Another direct quote “Although Ehrman does not quite say this, he leaves the impression that the original form of the NT was rather different from what the manuscripts now read.”

Impressions are inferred, meaning they are based on personal desires, perceptions and intentions, if Ehrman doesn’t say something, that simply means he didn’t say it, to accuse without proof is nothing but extreme personal bias, especially when the best accusation you can come up with is conjecture about intent.

He then goes into various particular evidences in which he admits they have been modified, but that it doesn’t change his person convictions, so why then even admit it in the first place? It was a pointless attempt at throwing in the “It doesn’t shake my convictions” as though that should somehow sooth most people that they too should simply accept that there are some inauthentic verses in the Bible and its ok for them to be there, that’s an extreme personal bias as well.

If you want, I will go through the particulars as well, but personally I think people can go through the review themselves and see that he cannot devalue the book, but instead is resorting to poor arguments that inspiration is not perfect and these verses only demonstrate that these people didn’t have the “original documents” completely disregarding the entire point of Ehrmans that you cant put your faith into a book where you DON’T have the original text, for this very reason.

Getting to the conclusion you will once again find nothing but personal Bias, saying the authors primary contention is not supported enough, as though if he somehow could prove a single point it would discredit the entire book, another extremely biased argument.

He then takes the opportunity to throw in some of his own personal views, as if they have anything to do with the review of the book, they are nothing but a personal plug for his own theology, this as well is insulting. It’s a shameless self promotion and irrelevant to the review.
In his last paragraph, he says he grieved for the author whom he used to mentor, again this has nothing to do with the book and is another attempt to insult the author.

To be quite frank, the entire review is nothing but a personal attack on the author from the reviewer, it is insult after insult and does little to discredit the book as a whole, instead only provides “excuses” for a few select verses from the authors book. This is why I said it is more biased, as the majority is nothing but an attempt to discredit the author as though it would subsequently discredit the book. The fact is that information is valid regardless of source, until proven false, which the reviewer even admits he cannot do.

So, I stand by my previous statement, and anyone willing to take the time to read the review would be hard pressed to find out otherwise.

[tmmyc]

I promised an explanation of why the review is extremely biased, so here it is.

The review in question is Here (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4000)

Lets start with the fact that the title is nothing more then a Dig at the author. Personal bias.

Now let’s look at the first paragraph. The author immediately starts his review by pointing out the successes of the book. As he does this you will notice that he specifically states that “The tedious details are not the stuff of a bestseller”, yet then shows that this book was a bestseller, then concludes with “Not bad for an academic tome on a “boring” topic!” This is a dig at the book, alleging that it doesn’t deserve its status because it is not worthy of being a best seller and is based on a boring topic.

In the very next sentence the reviewer attributes its success not to the author for being able to present “boring” material in an engaging way, he attributes it to Jesus and controversy, another Biased personal opinion.

He then alleges that the title does not present its claims, that there aren’t actually any examples of “saying of Jesus”, which is once again an insult to the book and not based in fact, the phrase “misquoting Jesus” can be inferred many ways, only one of which is relates to the reviewers assumption. Its more about people who, by manipulation and revision, have changed the core intent of the new testament, which is the very premise of people who misquote Jesus to serve their own perceptions.

Another direct quote “Although Ehrman does not quite say this, he leaves the impression that the original form of the NT was rather different from what the manuscripts now read.”

Impressions are inferred, meaning they are based on personal desires, perceptions and intentions, if Ehrman doesn’t say something, that simply means he didn’t say it, to accuse without proof is nothing but extreme personal bias, especially when the best accusation you can come up with is conjecture about intent.

He then goes into various particular evidences in which he admits they have been modified, but that it doesn’t change his person convictions, so why then even admit it in the first place? It was a pointless attempt at throwing in the “It doesn’t shake my convictions” as though that should somehow sooth most people that they too should simply accept that there are some inauthentic verses in the Bible and its ok for them to be there, that’s an extreme personal bias as well.

If you want, I will go through the particulars as well, but personally I think people can go through the review themselves and see that he cannot devalue the book, but instead is resorting to poor arguments that inspiration is not perfect and these verses only demonstrate that these people didn’t have the “original documents” completely disregarding the entire point of Ehrmans that you cant put your faith into a book where you DON’T have the original text, for this very reason.

Getting to the conclusion you will once again find nothing but personal Bias, saying the authors primary contention is not supported enough, as though if he somehow could prove a single point it would discredit the entire book, another extremely biased argument.

He then takes the opportunity to throw in some of his own personal views, as if they have anything to do with the review of the book, they are nothing but a personal plug for his own theology, this as well is insulting. It’s a shameless self promotion and irrelevant to the review.
In his last paragraph, he says he grieved for the author whom he used to mentor, again this has nothing to do with the book and is another attempt to insult the author.

To be quite frank, the entire review is nothing but a personal attack on the author from the reviewer, it is insult after insult and does little to discredit the book as a whole, instead only provides “excuses” for a few select verses from the authors book. This is why I said it is more biased, as the majority is nothing but an attempt to discredit the author as though it would subsequently discredit the book. The fact is that information is valid regardless of source, until proven false, which the reviewer even admits he cannot do.

So, I stand by my previous statement, and anyone willing to take the time to read the review would be hard pressed to find out otherwise.
The examples above are opinions of the reviewer, but to only focus on those sidenotes is to miss the meat of the review. The focus ought to be on the texts, and whether the author of the book successfully placed into doubt their validity, or if the rebuttals of the reviewer accurately solidifies the texts' validity.

Naturally, both sides will have their opinions, but they do not (or should not) change the facts. The final question is then, what are the facts, and what is the evidence to back it up?

[Parell]

Naturally, both sides will have their opinions, but they do not (or should not) change the facts. The final question is then, what are the facts, and what is the evidence to back it up?

None, if you are on the opposing side. Pro-Bible people say even if the the Bible was altered if the basic message is still there its fine. Anti-Bible think that is BS and that the Bible has been altered eight ways from Sundays to try and twist Jesus into a [son of] God.

[Amra]

Actually Tommyc, that’s the entire point, a reviewer is only supposed to give a 'professional unbiased opinion' which he entirely fails to do, his review is almost entirely against Ehrman and less against his book, a review should be judged by the reviewers tact, and Wallace shows his lack of it quite well.

Then he only points out a few of the "more questionable" parts of Ehrmans book, failing to write about Ehrmans more solid arguments, but Ehrman only included those particular verses because of their questionable nature, and didn’t build his entire books argument around those particular verses. The reviewers tactic is to attempt to discredit a few less important parts of the book enough to discourage people from reading it, in the hope that they will assume the entire book is entirely the same as those few questionable points. Its a tactic against the author and not the content, which makes it more biased then the original work, how simple does it need to be?

Furthermore if you take the time to read the Book, you will find that Ehrman points out that many of these changes don’t matter overall, but there are some that would dramatically change certain religious doctrine. He also is explains how there are vast differences in many of the found manuscripts (which I believe there are thousands), and he takes to time to explain how these differences are found, and how many differences are in some of the more common manuscripts. The point is that its changed, be it through intention, translation, or inspiration, and this is not only proven, its important in regards to the overall divinity of the Bible.

[baconbits]

I have, but I was not referring to the original authors works, I was referring to the review, which is blatantly biased through opinion, making his point about the bias of the original text superfluous, and consequently more biased because it was not based on fact.

How can a review not be biased by opinion? A review IS an opinion.

A better book in my opinion, is "Living Buddha, Living Christ", which shows the many correlations of Jesus' teachings with the teachings of the Buddha, Particularly when referencing heretical texts like the Gospel of St. Thomas.

However, the books like the Gospel of St. Thomas, and the Gospel of Judas are books written by individuals that the apostles opposed from the beginning, so it would be illogical to refer to the teachings of Jesus from people who do not support His teachings.

[MartialHorror]

Ack, I somehow aloud myself to get into 4 debates like this.

If you really want to continue, PM it to me. I dont have the time for all these.

(Although it appears Tmmyc took the debate off my hands so... :))

[Amra]

Baconbits

How can a review not be biased by opinion? A review IS an opinion.


Easy, dont attack the author in your review, explain how and why you think the text is lacking and simply let your argument about the text demonstrate the bias of the author, not that complicated. That is why a review is supposed to be professional, and unbiased. You are reviewing the book and the books content, not the author.

However, the books like the Gospel of St. Thomas, and the Gospel of Judas are books written by individuals that the apostles opposed from the beginning, so it would be illogical to refer to the teachings of Jesus from people who do not support His teachings.

Actually, the Gospel of St Thomas does support most of Jesus' teachings, it however also includes a great many other of Jesus' teachings that seem to follow a trend more similar to Buddhism then Catholicism. And the Gospel of Judas tells an entirely different story about the crucifixion, that Jesus actually came to Judas and requested Judas to turn him over to the Jews, so it also is not really 'against' Jesus' teachings, it is more like "the other side of the story", it explains how the whole crucifixion was set up by Jesus, but choosing whether or not to believe it is an individuals choice, but it wasnt written much later then any other of the Gospels, and time shouldn’t matter according to you (50 years instead of 20).

Also, you stopped mid-sentence before and have yet to finish our debate from page 4.

---------------------

Martial Horror

No worries man, this whole section is off-topic anyways :)

[baconbits]

Baconbits

Easy, dont attack the author in your review, explain how and why you think the text is lacking and simply let your argument about the text demonstrate the bias of the author, not that complicated. That is why a review is supposed to be professional, and unbiased. You are reviewing the book and the books content, not the author.

I'm just pointing out the facts of the real world that a review is an opinion. People listen to the reviews of people who share their bias. That is essentially what a review is.

Actually, the Gospel of St Thomas does support most of Jesus' teachings, it however also includes a great many other of Jesus' teachings that seem to follow a trend more similar to Buddhism then Catholicism.

I don't think Catholicism really has much to do with the teachings of Christ, so that section of the debate is something we would have to debate on elsewhere.

And the Gospel of Judas tells an entirely different story about the crucifixion, that Jesus actually came to Judas and requested Judas to turn him over to the Jews, so it also is not really 'against' Jesus' teachings, it is more like "the other side of the story", it explains how the whole crusifixion was set up by Jesus, but choosing whether or not to believe it is an individuals choice, but it wasnt written much later then any other of the Gospels, and time shouldn’t matter according to you (50 years instead of 20).

I didn't say "time didn't matter", my argument was that the people who saw Christ and opposed Him were alive when the Gospels were written, so I doubt they would allow the Gospels to be written uncontested if it contained a person who really didn't exist or do the things stated.

Secondly, the reason that time is important in respect to the Gospel of Judas is that it was written at a time when people who were against the bible were growing prevalent. They are actually mentioned in many of the Apostlistic gospels.

Also, you stopped mid-sentence before and have yet to finish our debate from page 4.

Don't worry, I shall return to our debate.

[MartialHorror]

Er, for the record. Judas was written over 100 years after the other gospels. Or more.

Sometimes between 200-300 AD.

[Amra]

Er, for the record. Judas was written over 100 years after the other gospels. Or more.

Sometimes between 200-300 AD.

Actually thats incorrect, latest research indicates 130CE-170CE at the latest. The regular Gospels are indicated to be between 70CE-90CE, so my original estimate of around 30 years is fairly accurate though it could be as much as 100 years.

[idlemanta]

I think God's getting fed up with us that's why all this evil is happening. Why should He have to do everything?! He's THE CREATOR, we are just His CREATIONS! (But you know, we're not just merely creations. We've freewill and bipedalism and stuff). We are only His creations and a tiny spec in this world.

People are just getting more and more corrupt because of all the evil. Unless someone FINALLY decides to do good and then more people do the same, then I guess He'll change His mind and maybe lessen the evil a bit or eradicate it because He can. That's it, really... This is like, His world we're living in...


btw, has anyone in here read the Gnostics??! :D
I love those things... :)

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

Yeah many religions have sacred books. But the Bible is the one I disagree with the most so it's pretty logical for me to try to bash it and not the other books. I think that there might just be some different God out there (no Christian God though).

Well you might just want to move to another country because many of the laws here came from stuff in the Bible or said in the Bible. You do realize that you are saying you disagree less with the books the tell their people to go out and kill people who think different than them...the Bible stopped doing that after the Old Testament.

Not only that, but why bash things you don't agree with. Unless is a moral issue, why care what me or some one else thinks. We're not here trying to shove it down your throat. I keep God out of most of my arguments because I realize half of you don't believe in God.

I believe the Bible is religious truth, that means that its not historical proof, but to the religions it is written for, it is meant to be a moral guideline.

Now God can not destroy all evil and leave free will in place, that is the nature of God. Why do you think they said God is a mystery. Any God that could create us all must be beyond out understanding, especially if we say he is omnipotent.

[Endless Mike]

Why would anyone consider a book of fairytales written by scientifically ignorant desert tribesmen thousands of years ago to be the truth?

I mean, it has TALKING SHRUBBERY.

[Endless Mike]

Well you might just want to move to another country because many of the laws here came from stuff in the Bible or said in the Bible. You do realize that you are saying you disagree less with the books the tell their people to go out and kill people who think different than them...the Bible stopped doing that after the Old Testament.

O RLY?

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” - Founding Father John Adams

character limit.

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

Why would anyone consider a book of fairytales written by scientifically ignorant desert tribesmen thousands of years ago to be the truth?

I mean, it has TALKING SHRUBBERY.
This ignorant desert tribesmen also irrigated that same desert to support crops and life. And there are more historical accounts of Jesus than Alexader the Great.

People in the Roman Governement wrote about the uproar of Christianity constantly.

O RLY?



character limit.

Point was, if you don't agree with the LAWS set up by this thing, then why be here?

[Endless Mike]

This ignorant desert tribesmen also irrigated that same desert to support crops and life. And there are more historical accounts of Jesus than Alexader the Great.

Even if that is true (I don't have time to research it), it's irrelevant.

There is more direct evidence and historical records of Bob Hope than both of them conbined, does that mean Bob Hope was a supernatural being?


People in the Roman Governement wrote about the uproar of Christianity constantly.


That would be relevant if I was denying the existence or influence of the Christian religion, but I'm not. As such, it's a red herring.

Point was, if you don't agree with the LAWS set up by this thing, then why be here?

Because the United States Constitution is in no way influenced and in no way resembles the laws of the Bible?

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

Even if that is true (I don't have time to research it), it's irrelevant.
No its not, because you alluded to the ignorance of the people writing this thing. Funny how they wrote something and the majority of the people in this country only became able to read and write more recently.

There is more direct evidence and historical records of Bob Hope than both of them conbined, does that mean Bob Hope was a supernatural being?
You called it a fairytale. Fairytales are not based in truth, so that does make you wrong.



That would be relevant if I was denying the existence or influence of the Christian religion, but I'm not. As such, it's a red herring.

Yeah you were, I mean if I made a relgion up from Cinderella called Cinderellism then that would be "based on a fairytale" but since at least some of the events in the Bible really happened, then you can't call it a fairytale. I mean some of the stuff in there is speculation to how things happened, like the fact there are three different creation narratives.


Because the United States Constitution is in no way influenced and in no way resembles the laws of the Bible?
Deemed by the creator that all men are created equal? And no one was just talking about that one document.

[Endless Mike]

No its not, because you alluded to the ignorance of the people writing this thing. Funny how they wrote something and the majority of the people in this country only became able to read and write more recently.

Non - sequitor much?

You called it a fairytale. Fairytales are not based in truth, so that does make you wrong.

You have yet to demonstrate that it is based on truth.

Yeah you were, I mean if I made a relgion up from Cinderella called Cinderellism then that would be "based on a fairytale" but since at least some of the events in the Bible really happened, then you can't call it a fairytale. I mean some of the stuff in there is speculation to how things happened, like the fact there are three different creation narratives.

So because there are a few snippets of accurate history in it, that automatically makes everything else correct?



Deemed by the creator that all men are created equal? And no one was just talking about that one document.

That's the Declaration of Independence, genius.:rotfl

Not to mention that Christianity is hardly the only religion that involves a creator. Practically every religion does.

[RonaldC]

People always have big arguments (long threads) when discussing religion.

As an atheist, I'd just like to contribute with one more vote against the belief that "bible is truth".

[Razgriez]

i have always seperated the biblical god to a spiritual god around me. If i can do that, then the universe around me is suddenly open. There is no good, nor is there evil because God, where as not existing physically, binds the universe together. We are god, everything is god, everything we experience, all that we are is one breathing conciousness.

Wow, can you suspect i may be smoking something there?
and this is how the christian religion evolved to the ever so changing world. A lot of the bible has been proven to be a bunch of contradictary bullshit that sounds extremely illogical. Counter: The bible shouldnt be taken literal but look at in an spiritual way. In other words simply just follow the meanings and morals of the book.

Ok, whatever. I always thought the book of god is suppose to be taken in literal terms since its the WORD OF GOD. Doesnt it even say that in the bible?

Oh yeah, theres also about 800 different translated versions of the bible as well. -_-

Yeah, that means the bible your reading is probably not the correct one.

[cape]

I don't believe the Bible is the truth,or it isn't the truth anymore,a holy book/religion that keeps changing every month is no religion/holy book.

It was the truth a long time ago.....but all these changes left very little truth in it.

[Rasha]

In my opinion:

Evil - The Absence of God.

Darkness is just the Absence of light. Darkness doesn't exist, whereas light, and moving light particles do exist. It is their presence that get rid of Darkness.

Cold is just the absence of heat. Cold is when nothing moves, not a molecule. There isn't such thing as coldness, it is the word used to describe the absense of heat molecules, when they are not there to keep things "moving" :P

Evil. Absence of God. No need to explain any further :P


I disagree. I believe evil is a figment, an idea, and most importantly, a label. Evil is in the eye of the beholder and if the beholder has friends that think someone/thing is evil, it proves nothing but the fact that people can agreed with one another. Evil is a wisp of black smoke in man’s mind that places its bias upon self and influenced opinion.

Nothing more and nothing less, Rasha

[Yukimura]

Question: Are you omniscient?

No? Then who are you to question God, who is omniscient, and has a modus operandi beyond your capability to ever comprehend or think of?

[fieryfalcon]

There is no way to objectively determine if the Bible is the truth. By its very nature belief can only be a matter of faith.

[Iw0rkatMcd0nald]

The bible was MANMADE, it didn't just drop out of the sky from god's hand. It has the insights of man and shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's my two cents.

[Vetrean]

Question: Are you omniscient?

No? Then who are you to question God, who is omniscient, and has a modus operandi beyond your capability to ever comprehend or think of?

Simple. Because he doesn't reveal himself.

Everything in life can be explained with an omnipotent and omniscient being. Is there one always?

I think that's really the point. If God, without a doubt, exists, then of course nobody would question him no matter the decisions(well...maybe. Lucifer comes to mind). But it's more a question of does he exist or not.

[Geg]

The bible was MANMADE, it didn't just drop out of the sky from god's hand. It has the insights of man and shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's my two cents.
I doubt there are very many Christians who really believe the Bible came directly from God, but there's still the belief that God influenced the writing. God's an omnipotent being after all, so He could easily directly or indirectly make someone write something.

To which you'll respond, "There's no proof for any of that; people only believe that because it's written in the Bible." To which I'll respond, "Exactly." And so on.

That's why debating the Bible is not moot. Most of the arguments end up just going in circles.

[Tsukiyomi]

Question: Are you omniscient?

No? Then who are you to question God, who is omniscient, and has a modus operandi beyond your capability to ever comprehend or think of?

I'm omniscient. Are you? No? Since you are not then who are you to question my omniscience?

[MkAura]

Who says God is omniscient.?? The....Bible?? A literal book??

[Hellraiser Bob]

I believe that the Bible holds a lot of wisdom, but it is also tainted by the words of man. You've got to remember that when the bible was written the world wasn't as it is today, so naturally a lot of the rules and guidelines don't apply to our time. But, meh, I refuse to bow to any god. In my eyes, any god that expects you to bow to him as a "king" is a tyrant, so that's why I'm a religious anarchist. I do believe that there is an allmighty creator, but I disagree with him on so many points, and so I refuse to accept him as my superior. If I have to burn in hell for all eternity for sticking up for my opinions, so be it.

[Amra]

I do believe that there is an allmighty creator, but I disagree with him on so many points, and so I refuse to accept him as my superior.

Biblically speaking the case can be made that we are Gods save the fact that we are bound to experience Death.


Genesis 1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 3:22. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Genesis 5:1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Genesis 9:6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

1 Corinthians 11: 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

James 3:9. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.


Sure its a perception thing though....



DOG: Humans! They feed me, keep water in my dish, give me a warm place to sleep, pet me, take care of me, they must be gods!

CAT: Humans! They feed me, keep water in my dish, give me a warm place to sleep, pet me, take care of me, I must be a god!

[Roy]

The bible was MANMADE, it didn't just drop out of the sky from god's hand. It has the insights of man and shouldn't be taken too seriously. That's my two cents.
but God told them what to write they obviously didint write Revelation

[Amra]

but God told them what to write they obviously didint write Revelation

Actually the writing style for Revelations was a very common writing style of the time period it was written. But it was also written cryptically, and there was a purpose. This was a time period that the Christians were being fed to lions and using secret symbols like the fish to keep from being martyred. So the book of Revelations was written in a bit of a code, this doesn’t make it more divine in nature then any other book, its just more cryptic because if it was blatantly written the author would likely have been martyred as well.

Your precept about Revelations is based off new wave fundamentalist teachings, and not based on actual historical research. Please take the time to research and verify what I have said, since I am certain you don’t believe me.

[Roy]

why would I wanna research when all I am going to read is lies I know what the bible says and I bealive it and thats good enough for me

[Ryuuken +]

interesting topic here....yes indeed

well anyway, the bible is the truth if you yourself choose to believe what has been written in the bible and truly believe in it, but for someone like myself who has completely shyed away from the bible, i say that it the bible may have 5-10 percent of truth to it maybe less then that because the bible has been rewritten more than 86 times already. Now i dont know how it could be called the book of truth after being rewritten so many times but if you choose to see past that than that is okay, but it is no place for me judge what someone else put their beliefs in

[Amra]

why would I wanna research when all I am going to read is lies I know what the bible says and I bealive it and thats good enough for me

Oh, well.. Then I see your mind is made up. So historical records are lies, and the Bible is truth, even though technically it is a historical record... Yeah, makes perfect sense.

[OmniStrife]

If god exists he's overrated lol

[Ryuuken +]

well he does exist and he is not overrated

[OmniStrife]

well he does exist and he is not overrated
Of course he doesn't, the belief in a superior being is retarded and should've died along with the middle ages.

[Amra]

well he does exist and he is not overrated

Should be...

well he does exist and he is not overrated...

<Evidence Here>

<Conclusion why your evidence demonstrated your thesis statement>


Please by all means try again.

[Ryuuken +]

lol....what are you game or something?! "please try again"....what?!

okay i will admit that i am sometimes sort of skeptical about the exsistence of god but i will not say that i dont consider the fact that there is a possible higher power and if there isn't oh well and if there is there is

[HyugaHinata]

A reason to make you sad is the reason to make you happy. You understand the other by knowing its opposite.

That's a fallacy. You're saying that if we had perfect justice (or happiness, or joy, or any other extreme), then we would immediately forget and be unable to identify what the opposite is.

[7th Sword Man of the Mist]

"When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" - James 1:13

Doesn't this mean that God is omnibenevolent (all-good) because if He can't be tempted by evil He can only be good right?

"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" - Jeremiah 32:27

" 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' " - Revelation 1:8

Doesn't this mean that God is omnipotent (all-powerful)?

"O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." - Psalm 139:1-4

Doesn't this mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing) or at least that He knows the future and that He also knows people's thoughts?

Now we got to the point:
IF God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent then why, for example, why does all that bad stuff happen to Job?

"Well of course God was testing his belief and his righteousness!" (He gave Satan the permission) But why did He have to test him in the first place if He is all-knowing? He would have known that Job really was a true believer. And if God actually knew he was indeed a true beliver then why did he test him?

"To prove Job's belief to Satan of course!" Well why did he have to prove it to Him? If he did it just for that then he isn't omnibenevolent (though He wouldn't be that in the case of testing his belief either) The fact that he allowed Satan to do these evil things to Job proves that God isn't omnibenevolent and/or omniscient.

And if we think about the real world and the starvation, genocides, weapons of mass destruction, and etc...Why does this happen if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? This is also known as Theodicy, the problem of evil. "Unknown are the ways of God!" and "It all leads to God's ultimate plan!" are the common explanations. Well if it all leads to His "ultimate plan" why doesn't he make that plan happen right now. I mean He is all-powerful for crying out loud, isn't he. And if he is in fact omnipotent and all the people in this world aren't happy and replete then He can't be omnibenevolent cause He holds all the power and He could make them all happy. Right? And He knows about their suffering if he is omniscient. So let's make this a clear presentation shall we:

"Facts":
1: God is omnipotent > He can destroy evil
2: God is omnibenevolent > He is against evil
3: God is omniscient > He knows about evil
4: There is evil in the world

Basically number four and 1,2,3 are contradictory so God cannot be all one, two, and three. He is either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent or not omniscient and there is only one other possibilty and that is that He doesn't exist.

Some say that there is evil because God wanted humans to have free will and do what they want and that is why there's evil (because of humans) But God still made humans the way they are so couldn't He have made them moral creatures that do not commit crimes etc. Again if He couldn't do this He isn't omnipotent.

"Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " - Exodus 32:27

Here Moses tells these people to kill and he says that that is what God said. Isn't this a bit contradictory with Exodus 20:13 stating that "You shall not murder." (New International Version of Bible from Biblegateway.com. Also sometimes translated "Thou shalt not kill.") Of course Moses might have just been making this stuff up but then again aren't the first five books of the Bible "Books of Moses"? If Moses lied about God saying that would we have to discard the first five books of the Bible? That includes Genesis :D

I'll end this here but if something else comes to my mind I will continue to list reasons. I encourage everyone to try to crush my arguments! I think that the Christian God does not exist. Those are some of my reasons above. But this is strictly about whether the Bible is true so discuss (debate, fight) about it.Job was being tested BY SATAN not God to see if Job would give faith in God.Job's family give faith and died. I am not saying that beleive in God or die

[Iw0rkatMcd0nald]

Now I will say what I have always said in other similar threads about bible-related stuff. The Bible didn't drop from the sky out of God's hands. Humans wrote it with their insight on things. Humans used materials that they constructed themselves to make the Bible, God didn't poof the Bible out of nowhere saying that this is the Book of God. So remember one thing, HUMANS made the Bible, not God. Humans used their insights on things, not God.

[7th Sword Man of the Mist]

Sry typed it wrong

[Chazwind]

No, I don't think its the truth because whats already been stated, the book is created by man, and from my knowledge, it dosn't provide much evidence in its content that we can grasp on to as a valid reason.

But I do respect those who spend so much time and effort putting it together though.

[Lakira]

The Thing that's confusing about the bible is who wrote the bible i know it couldn't be anyone Jersulaham because i don't think they can write that what confusing and this hundreds of years ago, and the person who wrote it can't sur-vibe could had die in the middle of the book:huh

[Kimi Sama]

If you think of yourself as a Christian, I think you should believe every single word of the Bible. Afterall, how can you believe some parts of it to be true, but not others?

You can't just have a pick n' mix religion, or the bits you chose to belive aren't valid.

*edit* Oh and 7th Swords Man, if you're going to have Jesus in your signature... spell it all right.

[Chazwind]

yeah, I agree. This is why I'm a Buddhist. I've found that its really practical and feel more at peace for me than other religions, just a pure, simple, qualitied advice that is offered to anyone, not just Buddhists.

for Christianity, its just tough for alot of people to grasp a sense of peace or an understanding of oneself, although I've studied alot it. and the fact that all these bible debates, questioning god threads, or "God favoring those who believe in him over those who don't" is really a turn off for me.

[ku1jt]

Bible and truth are incompatible terms. Darwin and other scientifics had proved it. But everybody is free to believe in God, Allah or something.

[Pinkaugust]

The bible can't be the truth for many reasons.

for starters, it's inconsequent. many things change suddenly in the bible, for instance Kain and his children. first, they're his sons, then they're Adams sons..

also, God is supposed to be infallable, he's unable to make mistakes, and if he did, the universe would collapse. Yet he made the mistake of creating man, so he drowned them all and let Noa live.

[Louis-954]

Truth no, speculation yes.

[Giovanni Rild]

If you think of yourself as a Christian, I think you should believe every single word of the Bible. Afterall, how can you believe some parts of it to be true, but not others?

You can't just have a pick n' mix religion, or the bits you chose to belive aren't valid.

*edit* Oh and 7th Swords Man, if you're going to have Jesus in your signature... spell it all right.

Are you say there is no room for question? I have questions about the bible also that don't make sense to me. People say it's impossible to have a scientific mind and be a christain. When I was a brat, I discussed evoloution with a friend of mine, he got very offended.

Me and another friend of man discussed to concept of hell and who goes there. What atheists don't understand is that believers don't need proof. they don't need facts. They believe that God exsists and that's good enough for them.

Even though I believe in evoloution and that the big bang took place, I still believe in God. I know that makes me sound like a hypocrite

[SafiMoyo]

And thus I am Buddhist. No gods for me thank you. I do believe in a higher being, but not what people'd consider a "god." I mostly think we're something really small on something reeeeeally big. (Like if there were plants on atoms. We're a planet on an atom that's surrounded by many other atoms that's on a "person" or a "desk" or something that is also on something much bigger than it is.)

(Squee, I'm not the only Buddhist here! Hurray!)

[Run.The.Animal]

Is Clifford The Big Red Dog truth? Ofcourse. Growth hormones are everywhere these days. But the bible... sorry, but I'm not gonna believe someone who died before I was even born. I won't trust anyone I've never met personally.

I've never read the bible, but what I hear about a talking, burning bush... I just laugh and ask "Where was Smokey the Bear two thousand years ago?"

If the bible is truth, we're gonna have to say the Koran is truth, the Book of Mormon is truth, and all that crap. We just can't call one religion "right". After all, right and wrong is opinion, which is never right or wrong.

[asam_laksa]

The problem with a lot of people....actually most of the people, they tend to generalize things and them dismissed them as speculations. They do not take things in context, in the timeline, in the place.

For instance......Jonah>> got swallowed by a fish>>Must be a myth/fairytale and got spat out through the land after three days and three nights.

But the truth is >> Whales were found to be in the Mediterannea Sea (where Jonah was caught).....and there are a few incidents where man/animals in the size of man get trapped inside the whale's stomach, still alive after a few days(James Bartley, Falkland Island). And whales do regurgitate everything to the land, before they dies.

Jesus >> no on the cross, no die, die and come back alive after 3 days.
But the ironic thing is >> All of his disciples willing to be tortured and killed prematuredly, matyr death for a lie/myth??

Don't be presumptious. You need to be really know what you are doing, before you say such general statement. Those who does, the scientists, archaeologists, historians, researchers wouldn't deny the validity of what was written.

Go and get yourself a degree and then yourselves go and verify the validity of the bible.

Just because one Tom, D/ck, Harry says....you all are going to follow what they are saying.

[Bro Tai Jr.]

-coughevolutioncough-

[Red]

can of worms

[Louis-954]

can of worms Couldnt of said it better myself.

[Giovanni Rild]

can of worms
Mabey it's a can that needs to be opened.

[Red]

Mabey it's a can that needs to be opened. not by anybody that it tickles there fancy over the internet....

[Narvi]

Ye gods, no. Not unless you believe that plant life came before the sun.

[Iruka-Senpai]

I believe the Bible iis true and I believe that the Glorious Quran is true as well. I feel that there is reason enough for me to believe in both books.

[Seelas]

I'm of the opinion that we have no reason to believe in anything without substantial evidence for it, as such no, the bible isn't true. One pet peeve of mine would be the viewpoint in Iruka-Senpai's sig: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." That's certainly true, but it also doesn't say much of anything. You're right that I can't disprove that God exists. I also can't disprove that Santa Claus exists, or that our entire world is a carefully planned illusion by a sentient wheel of cheese. Should I give the same degree of infallibility to those latter two statements, simply because I can't prove they don't exist? We consider them absurd because there's no reason to believe them, but there's no reason to believe in the former, either, other than that it's been artificially legitimized by societal precedent.

[Steven Pinhead]

Is the bible truth?

I certainly don't think so.

[Iruka-Senpai]

I'm of the opinion that we have no reason to believe in anything without substantial evidence for it, as such no, the bible isn't true. One pet peeve of mine would be the viewpoint in Iruka-Senpai's sig: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." That's certainly true, but it also doesn't say much of anything. You're right that I can't disprove that God exists. I also can't disprove that Santa Claus exists, or that our entire world is a carefully planned illusion by a sentient wheel of cheese. Should I give the same degree of infallibility to those latter two statements, simply because I can't prove they don't exist? We consider them absurd because there's no reason to believe them, but there's no reason to believe in the former, either, other than that it's been artificially legitimized by societal precedent.

Actually that was a joke I got off the Boondocks. So....I guess your post doesn't mean anything to me.

As far as evidence of the Bible's authenticity goes, if you wish to have a debate about this,I'd be happy to. I think it is foolish to think that God would not protect historical evidence that would back up his followers' claims.

Plus, even with all the evidence that supports the Bible, there are always those who just don't wish to accept it. The true and most important part of believing is in the heart. One has to search deep inside themselves to feel God's presence in all living things. It's not simply a matter of the most educated answer, but more of a balance of logical/spiritual awareness. A believer should Trust in the evidence he or she has at the moment and have faith that the unanswered questions will be answered in time.

[amanoginji]

the truth of the matter is what alot of people always talk about including the people here in this thread is from misstranslations of the bible, very bad ones at that.
pick up the hebrew one, which is the one still written in its correct text and which others had did bad copies of..

one of the first things alot of people would notice is luscifer doesnt exit :O , holy crap now that i mention that how did a latin name get into hebrew writting???? thats right because there is no devil, god is evil as he is good.. he tests people just because he feels like it, and thats usually what is referred to when someone was tempted is god testing you..
its just when the bible was rewritten for alot of people they wanted a big good vs evil thing, so christians rewrote it.

theres also no original sin
no hell, zero nada, in fact when you die if your a good person you go straight to heaven if your evil you go to this half-way point for up to a year, where you reflect upon all the crap you have done and learn from your mistakes.
there are 613 commandments not just 10, and its not like people are just leaving out one or two there was more then 600 more commandments left out..

thats just a little bit of what was originally in the bible that so many never knew existed..
if you would like further reading then look up judaism, or go here www.jewfaq.org its got alot outlined for you so you can get an idea..
before you try and argue im wrong just remember judaism predates christianity, islam etc... by many hundreds of years so im pretty sure its better to look at the orgin to figure out if later spin-offs make any sense..

[Louis-954]

I believe the Bible iis true and I believe that the Glorious Quran is true as well. I feel that there is reason enough for me to believe in both books.
If they were both "true" why arethere 2 books? If they were both "true" both of the religions would be one. If they are both "true" why are they both separate from one another?

That is proof that not one religion agrees with one another because if they did we wouldnt need all these god knows how many religions right? So how exactly do you decipher truth from bullshit?


Here's some advice everyone, follow your freewill.

[angelchick]

The bible is a historic text, just because you don't agree with its views doesn't mean its fake; it just means you don't agree with it. In the New Testament, I believe that the different people, who helped write it, wrote down what they saw. I don't believe that they would die for a twist in truth or for a story they made up in there head, what would be the point? None God gave us free will so that who could choose if we want to be with him. If he programmed it in our heads to choose right all the time, it wouldn't be free choice, we would be robots, and angry robots at that, (humans usually dont like to be forced to do something that they don't want to do). I follow the bible becuase I need a savior. A distant relationship or none with God is not evough, nor is believing that I'm just a pile of cells with no purpose is enough. Even though being a Christian isn't easy (I mean, it's not exactly easy to do right all the time, nor is it possible), I believe that it's the best choice that I ever made. I'm a Christian because my way of finding happiness almost led me to suicide, following Christ has given me a purpose and gave me joy that I never obtained from living for me. Besides, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, there isn't going to be any consequence for it, but if I'm right...

[AuxunauxiaNoname]

"Whatever men believe to be real, is real in its consequences"

This goes for women too. ^_^

So the Bible is the truth, for all those who believe in it, in that their beliefs affect their actions.

Faith is the kind of truth we hold in our hearts.

And in the end, is there any other kind?

Even science is ultimately due to the scientific community believing whatever proof is produced.

Is the Bible the Truth?

Well... what exactly is truth anywayz?


The true and most important part of believing is in the heart.


:nod Agreeing with Iruka-senpai on this one.

[Char-Aznable]

People claim to have faith but their "faith" has never been truly tested. Like in Columbine, the girl who said yes. She was asked if she believed in god, faith warps men and leads them to their doom. Faith is nothing to be praised. Those with faith will end up broken and dead. Faith, what is it? now that truly is the question isn't it?

[Nega]

Up to date christians will tell you not to take the bible literally. There are alot of things within that go against right and wrong.

[Seelas]

People claim to have faith but their "faith" has never been truly tested. Like in Columbine, the girl who said yes. She was asked if she believed in god, faith warps men and leads them to their doom. Faith is nothing to be praised. Those with faith will end up broken and dead. Faith, what is it? now that truly is the question isn't it?Not sure I agree with everything you're saying but I do agree with the notion that while faith generally has a positive connotation nowadays, it really shouldn't. Faith, either in religion or some other ideal, is generally a destructive practice that allows us to believe and justify whatever we want. As Voltaire said, "If we believe absurdities, we will commit atrocities," and faith is an easy way to believe any absurdity we damn well please.

[MartialHorror]

People claim to have faith but their "faith" has never been truly tested. Like in Columbine, the girl who said yes. She was asked if she believed in god, faith warps men and leads them to their doom. Faith is nothing to be praised. Those with faith will end up broken and dead. Faith, what is it? now that truly is the question isn't it?

lol, does that mean the Columbine shooters were Atheists? Apparently they did not think faith was anything to be praised.

Keep in mind, this is your opinion and most people probably disagree. It's faith that causes people to do.......all the good in the world?

Keep in mind, faith is not always linked to God.

If the shooter said, "Do you have faith in humanity?" and they said yes, and got killed, than Humanism is wrong as well.

Imo, if the world becomes Atheist, Humanism will be the only thing to save it. Imo, most good Atheists, more or less, are Humanists because if not then their all assholes. If you aren't living for God or humanity as a whole, then you are a Satanist(as in belonging to that actual religion, which is really just self serving atheism). And Satanists= Arrogant assholes.

So faith, while it can bring death, is also the thing that keeps people morale.

[Louis-954]

If you aren't living for God or humanity as a whole, then you are a Satanist(as in belonging to that actual religion, which is really just self serving atheism). And Satanists= Arrogant assholes.
QFT, Church Of Satan sucks balls.

[Nega]

So faith, while it can bring death, is also the thing that keeps people morale.

All you need is a conscience.

[MartialHorror]

Keep in mind though, conscious means you wont do bad. It doesnt mean you will go out of your way to help people.

John Lennon, imo, was a bigot in his Atheism. Nevertheless, his humanist side is the only reason I still respect him. Keep in mind also, not all Christians are humanists either. In fact, most probably aren't.

[AuxunauxiaNoname]

What is faith? And what is truth?

Is truth ultimately based on faith... or is faith not truth at all, but a destructive force blinding people to the truth?

But what is faith? Is it merely belief?

I believe in science, but is it my faith?

You believe that faith is destructive... but ironically enough, could that really also be your faith? In a sense?

The world has many questions. We are merely human. We seek solutions and answers, but sometimes our minds cannot grasp it.

In the end, what is religion but a temporary solution to that, to ease our confusion till we can come up with a better way?

An answer... I guess we'll just keep looking untill we find it... if there really even is one.

[Shunsuii]

Theres like 63 different Bibles, its impossible to determine the truth...theres too many mistakes in the bible..

[AuxunauxiaNoname]

What if truth doesn't even exist?

[Shunsuii]

In the Bible? Then its a failure.

[Nega]

Ok now we are thinking a little too much.

[Vicious]

i dont beleive its true it causes more war than anything else, ppl should beleive in themselves and live their life not wondering if u r going to hell or not.??!
just because i dont beleive in the bible doesnt mean i beleive in the GUT or the TOE theories...

[ComputerFriendly]

It is difficult to determine if the bible is true because it has probably been changed throughout history. I believe that the bible was originally created to be the truth, but again that is only my belief.

[Speedycat]

IMHO, the bible is not the truth at all, it was something that was written by people a long time ago based on the extremely intolerant and generally morally wrong standards of the time.

[Vicious]

written by people a long time ago based on the extremely intolerant standards of the time to further empower them.i always thought of that but it could be that ppl made religion to keep the peace because without it their would be more volience.but today their seems to be more volience than ever..?!

[MartialHorror]

IMHO, the bible is not the truth at all, it was something that was written by people a long time ago based on the extremely intolerant and generally morally wrong standards of the time.

Yes, they wrote it to empower them.........even though they were all considered to be the lowest of the low and were persecuted yet died with their beliefs.

Morally wrong standards? Yeah, not murdering is morally wrong. Have you even read the Bible? :huh

[lolita_poison15]

What if truth doesn't even exist?

the truth will not exist if you didnt find or seek for it .....truth will not wont reveal it self if no one is looking ....:)

[AZIZ_FROST]

the truth will not exist if you didnt find or seek for it .....truth will not wont reveal it self if no one is looking ....:)

the truth will not be revealed if we search for it.....it will be revealed once we're DEAD!!!....:nuts and thats the truth......:amuse

[AuxunauxiaNoname]

Well at least this isn't as bad as asking how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood. :nod

It's more like asking... how much truth does the bible have, if the bible does have truth. I think?

But if we don't even know what truth really is, then how could we know if there's truth in the bible?

And how do we look for the truth, if we didn't even know what truth really is?

It's like trying to find your favorite pair of socks in your sock drawer, and completely forgetting what those pair of socks looked like. You don't even remember wether you even had a favorite pair of socks in the first place.

So in the end, all you're doing is flipping through socks.

Why don't you, just pick a pair, and call it your favorite? If it fits well then wear it.

Who cares about truth? If it keeps me alive and happy then, good.

If it doesn't make me happy, then it's like, what's the point of wearing a pair of socks if it's not comfortable?

Does this make sense?

[Firedraconian]

The real question is, how much truth does the Bible have when compared to other religious or scientific texts?

[Kumiko-chan]

I believe that the bible is just a bunch of stories written by old men who sold them to get money for food. I don't believe that the bible is true. End of story!

[MartialHorror]

I believe that the bible is just a bunch of stories written by old men who sold them to get money for food. I don't believe that the bible is true. End of story!

You do realize they were persecuted for doing so yet never renounced their beliefs, right?

[Nega]

Really hungry old men who didn't care about dying since there is heaven and all, or so they believed.

[Firedraconian]

You do realize they were persecuted for doing so yet never renounced their beliefs, right?

Something that is true for every religion...

[AuxunauxiaNoname]

Every person who reads the bible interprets it in a different way. Perception is a large component of an individual.

So in the end, all they ever did was believe in what they themselves or what others told them to believe and affirm it with 'the book'.

Thus isn't the bible not so much a book of truths, but simply a book you can use to affirm what you already believe with or without it?

[MartialHorror]

Actually not every religion. In fact, most aren't.

Lets see....I guess Islam has it, although it ended differently. Christians let themselves be persecuted. When Mohommed was, he fought back(and eventually won). The Jews have been persecuted, but I cant think of any of the writers of the OT being persecuted.

Sedarta wasn't persecuted, although he did choose a fate similar to Christs. I have no clue about Hinduism.

Im sure many smaller religions have it, but who knows where they came from. Although unlike those, it is most likely Jesus, Peter, ect all existed and most likely died through persecution(although Jesus being who he is has no historical basis).

I read somewhere that "Jesus is a myth" theory is generally done by experts in the wrong field. Most historians except most likely these figures did exist because no one ever claimed they did not. For one, since Pilate was used as the executioner of Christ then he would have put a stop to a false belief. If not him then it would be his successor. ALso, the Jewish Government hated Christians, and would have done eveyrthing to prove them to be false. In an early text, some Jewish guy called Christ a sorcerer and devil-worshiper, his existence was never questioned.

So these people did die for your beliefs, if your comment was to show that that seems to be a popular deal in all religions.

So name some actual religions in which the creators of the religion all died terrible deaths.........

Edit: Nega, these people were Jews. Blasphemy, which is what it would have been called, is enough to get one to hell. So obviously they had to believe it to be true. Also, they died terrible deaths. Peter was crucified upside down because he did not feel he was worthy of the same death of Christ.

[Pinkaugust]

"Facts":
1: God is omnipotent > He can destroy evil
2: God is omnibenevolent > He is against evil
3: God is omniscient > He knows about evil
4: There is evil in the world


Yet he created evil, and he created mankind, who he later regretted creating and killed them all in the Flood to cleanse the world. God wanted Abram (later Abraham) to go to war against other men, and isn't war evil? Is war really ever just? Didn't God let the egyptians experience horrible pain and suffering for enslaving the jews, yet the jews were allowed to have slaves and not be punished, yet their way of life was his doing! Isn't it evil to kill the firstborns of every egyptian family for something that still is double-standards? Doesn't that mean God isn't really against evil?

God couldn't find Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and called their names in search for them. When he realized that they had eaten of the tree of knowledge he cast them out, cursing them for the evils of the snake, who had tricked them, and the snake was his creation, which means that Adam and Eve shouldn't have been punished, God should've been! Doesn't that mean God isn't Omniscient?

The bible holds many errors of logic, and if one thinks logically, you can see that much of what is said in the bible is only texts to make people believe in something outrageous, and give power to the church. As Hitler once said: "If you're going to lie, lie big."

[MartialHorror]

Actually war is not evil. War often is just, but is the cause of evil in mankind.

Example, if there was a race of people who just went and raped and killed everyone, then another race decided they had enough and declared war. The war itself is not evil, but thanks to the actions of evil people it exists.

[Char-Aznable]

War and killing is always evil. No matter how just it may seem killing and taking life is evil. Sure you may be doing it for others but your still killing, all war is evil and mankind just makes it stronger.

[Dave]

millions of people are following the words that are in ONE book on single religon.......is this wong? millions of people died for this ONE book!
i think this is crazy

[T4R0K]

millions of people are following the words that are in ONE book on single religon.......is this wong? millions of people died for this ONE book!
i think this is crazy

This is correct... People can choose to die for very bad reasons sometimes... Same happened for other non-religious ideologies. Marx and his books (the main 2 of his) induced many deaths too.

I'd die for my family, but religions and ideologies can kiss my ass.

[Char-Aznable]

millions of people are following the words that are in ONE book on single religon.......is this wong? millions of people died for this ONE book!
i think this is crazy

This is true I've seen and read part of a bible that was hand written many many years ago, the catch it was stained with human blood. its truly sad to see so many die for something like a book or a religion. but we can't live their lives for them so they must do what they want. Even if their god leads them to their doom.

[NU-KazeKage]

people die for america too even if there president leads them too there doom..you peolpe dont have any concrete proof God dosnt exist so why do you hate on it so much..people dying and suffering is stuff we bring on our selfs..humans can do evil things dont blame God for stuff we do

[Char-Aznable]

I blame no one for going to die for god. They truly believe in him then they can do what they want. I'm just saying dieing for something is just sad in my eyes (not like pathetic but actually sad) but they believe in it so that deserves respect

And when you say people die for America, yes we go and die for our country, I lost my both my grandfathers to WWII, I would never go to war for something I don't believe in, but when you have something to fight for, fight! for them they have god and they died for him, or her I'm not sure anymore.

And nor do you have concrete proof he exsists either, yet you still follow him so don't go there.

[Beo]

The bible? The truth?!
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Char-Aznable]

Now ya see people like you shouldn't post. Give a dignified reponse and propse an argument, what you did is just insulting.

[Beo]

It was meant to be.

[Beo]

If you want an argument start a thread in the debate corner.

[Char-Aznable]

yea kinda figured that, its still not cool.

god has no one ever heard of the "edit" button!?!

[Beo]

ya, but I wanted another post to my count.

[Char-Aznable]

Oh yea well thats understandable........

[Beo]

you should get back on topic.

[Saurus]

www.godisimaginary.com

[Char-Aznable]

you should get back on topic.

As should you.

Also that site is great Saurus I use that all the time.

[Beo]

Anyway, the bible is obviously a work of discriminatory fiction written by someone/s with a messiah complex.

[Char-Aznable]

Exactly. The bible is nothing but a story and an excuse (in my opinion for those out there who are oversensitive) written to provide morals and a way of life.

[Beo]

Discriminatory morals and lifestyles.

[Amaretti]

The bible is severely questionable when it comes to truthiness. The whole flooding the world shortly after it was made in just seven days? We know that's complete rubbish. But, boy, they're cool stories to tell to gullible kids. They love all that animal stuff.

And you have to consider how much the source material has been fiddled with over the years. The gospel of Mary Magdalene is evidence that the church fathers tended to fix things to suit themselves.

www.godisimaginary.com

Seconded. Excellent site.

[Char-Aznable]

the church is corrupted and should not be listened to. They provide lies and are ignorant pigs who think they are all knowing and righteous when in reality they are simple fools with a god complex.

[Beo]

I doubt most of them actually believe. They just want to be part of a discriminatory group.(sorry for using that word too often)

[Char-Aznable]

I to think that. The church is blind and arrogant. Thousands of religions and they and only they are right. Fools.

[Beo]

you're singing to the quior.

[Char-Aznable]

Also the church condemns Atheism as "Satanic" in a quote from a cardinal a few years back. Why is it that those who reject their religion are now "satanic" hell I've been called Pagan, satanic, and a fool for not believing in their god! Now why is that?

[Beo]

Because they are arrogant and firm in their belief that they are right.

[Beo]

So.......

all these are talks about church, God, people attidue and people dying in a religion.....

but not about the truth in the Bible??

Are you sure that you all are talking about it....or are you all spewing out your hatred on a religion, which you have no general info about??

In another word......do you all know what you are talking about at the first place??

I do. He's seems to be just venting though.

[asam_laksa]

But you said this>>
Anyway, the bible is obviously a work of discriminatory fiction written by someone/s with a messiah complex.

Do you intend this to be a joke .....or a fact??

[Beo]

A fact, that's why I said obviously.
The topic is whether or not the bible is true and I said no.

[Char-Aznable]

Venting, please. I stated facts you just choose not to believe them.

[Beo]

Venting, please. I stated facts you just choose not to believe them.

I agree with everything you said, but none of it had anything to do with this topic, so that's why I thought you were venting.

[Aman]

I don't believe that every single word in the bible is the way it used to be/was meant to be, but I am a Christian and believe in it, and some things have happened in my life because of my family's faith.

[Beo]

I don't believe that every single word in the bible is the way it used to be/was meant to be, but I am a Christian and believe in it, and some things have happened in my life because of my family's faith.

What things?:mad

[Aman]

That's none of your business.

[Beo]

That's none of your business.

Then don't post!

[Aman]

You were the one who commented my post. :oh

Oh well, that ends my posts in here.

[Char-Aznable]

Interesting...........

[MartialHorror]

er, last I checked, for the record, the Gospel of Mary has been proven to be innacurate.

The purging of many gospels were destroyed due to time infallacies, ect. It was written 120-180 AD it is believed, and Mary would not be alive at that time.

The gospel of Thomas is the only questionable one they cut out. If I recall though, it has been heavily debated on its text(ranging from 40AD; which would make it the earliest gospel to 200AD; More biblical scholars believe it was written after Mathew)

Edit: Er, so what? I've heard Atheists speak of burning Christians at the stake.....this wasn't that long ago either. So whine, whine, whine, at the least, Atheists are as arrogant as Christians. Although look at the "Passion of the Christ" movie board on IMDB and see who is generally the more hateful.

[Vegitto-kun]

The bible is bullshit, its nothing but a book written by several people who have the possibility to tell as much bullshit as they want to + the church leaders like to change things (apparently the anti gay part was only added in the 15th century)

[Char-Aznable]

You call it whining, I call it truth. See how the world can have a different view than you?

[Vegitto-kun]

You call it whining, I call it truth. See how the world can have a different view than you?

Yes but the magical book is completely right

oh wait harry potter must be real too :wtf since its a super popular book too :amazed

[T4R0K]

Torah, Bible, Koran, Tibetan Book of the Dead... They're all books. Books about faith. So for the people that believe, those books seem to cary the "truth", but it is hard to verify it. So it's kind of relative. Different people, different approaches.

For christians, Bible is truth. For muslims, it's the Koran. So far, there should be no problem. Problems start when they start throwing stuff at each other to impose the other their own view of "truth". And that's where I sigh in despair and lose faith in Mankind, and just start digging myself a bunker.

As for me, truth is that I eat, evacuate biological waste, look for a job, and need a GF.

[Lain]

It's just like I heard on some comedy skit...

"...because that's what the Bible says and everyone knows that the Bible is true because the Bible SAYS that the Bible is true!"

[MartialHorror]

You call it whining, I call it truth. See how the world can have a different view than you?

omg, dont even try that on me. I acknowledge every truth that may not even be true and keep an open mind, I don't just throw out random thoughts and pretend they are fact.

This is where every hardcore atheist fails in every debate, they can't comprehend a worldview such as God so they feel they must be right. Ethnocentricism up the wazoo.

Vegitto-kun, the entire gay thing isn't true, and has been an abomination since FAAAAR behind the 15 century(Er, dont get me wrong. I dont believe it is an abomination, but I'm using the typical Church POV). King Phillip(of the crusades) got in huge trouble due to him being a homosexual(This was before 1500) and it has always been around in Judaesm that homosexuality was considered to be wrong.

You can say the Bible is bullshit, but the fact is you really don't know, you have no basis as to why it is, and you are just being arrogant.

Prove the Bible is bullshit.

The world created in 7 days and the flood: First off, we figure out our current science using man-made tools and experiments. Man-made= flawed, yet you guys always seem to usr this on the Bible. Point being, dont put too much faith on man-made creations.

Now, personally, I dont believe the world was created in 7 days, ect, and I do believe in our current science, nevertheless,

1) If you look at it that literally, you are just as dumb as Goerge W. Bush, which is pretty dumb. The Bible points out a day to God is like 10,000 years to man. Realize this, back then, 10,000 was considered to be somewhat of an unreachable number. Point is, time does not really mean anything to God, or was so high that they had not created a number for it yet(hence, the 7 days).

Two, I personally am indifferent to Adam and Eve. I can say it either happened, or it could be metaphorical(Adam/Eve through Noah can all be taken as the growth of the human soul)

2) The flood- First off, I consider the Bible to be God inspired. This does not mean he wrote it. Normal people wrote it. Back then, they didn't think the world was beyond their borders. Hence, if God named the place(I have no clue what it would have been called back then), they would think it was the world. Most likely there was a massive flood at that time(I believe it was the black sea that really rose, I do remember the scientific evidense for that) but it wouldn't have been world-wide. And once again, you can take it metaphorically.

What else? Is Jesus a myth? No, in fact, historians generally consider people who believe this to be in the wrong field of expertise.(But the question is if he was who he claimed to be and such)

Im sure one of you will spew crap like "Notice how they always resort to metaphors?" It's called human perception, dumbasses. Every human sees things differently from the person next to him. it's always why we are so divided. There are many intelligent liberals who look at the bible in a liberal way.Some think its all metaphor, a story given to us by God, per say. Are they wrong to think that? Is it bullshit to them? No.

But this is why I generally slam Atheists, because most dont seem to realize this. If anything goes against their views, its bullshit.

[Red]

Yes but the magical book is completely right

oh wait harry potter must be real too :wtf since its a super popular book too :amazed
........




fool:oh

[Amaretti]

You can say the Bible is bullshit, but the fact is you really don't know, you have no basis as to why it is, and you are just being arrogant.

Prove the Bible is bullshit.

Burden of proof is on you, the believer, not the challenger.

By your logic, I could say there is a giant polkadot monster in space who eats planets and daisies, and I'd be able to pass it off as true because no one would be able to disprove me (especially when I tell you it's invisible). Even if it's complete bullshit, as long as you can't prove it doesn't exist we will all have to act like it does.

See the gap in logic there?

Since it's my theory, it's my responsibility to prove its worth. Placing the burden of proof on the people I'm trying to convince is in no way going to prove the truth of my theory.

It's a logical fallacy to claim something is true because it cannot be proven NOT to be true. If that was the case, I could say that it cannot be true because it cannot be proven to be true.

It's fallacious to assert something as true because it can't be proven or disproven. But then, logic and the bible don't mix well, do they?

And as long as the bible cannot be proven to be true, and as long as God cannot be proven to exist, why the hell should people be expected to believe in them? Expecting atheists to believe in something where there is an absence of proof is like expecting people to believe in my polkadot monster theory.

[Vegitto-kun]

I believe in the oh mighty polkadot

[Nega]

Its not really a dot its a giant hockey puck.

[Vegitto-kun]

OMG what to believe

[Char-Aznable]

Yes but the magical book is completely right

oh wait harry potter must be real too :wtf since its a super popular book too :amazed


ahahahahahahaha....ahhhhhhh wow. I lol'ed:amuse

Also to you Martial I say your so wrong on every level. Atheists aren't as simple minded and dumb as you say. Do you think I was always Atheist? If you said yes YOU are as dumb as our dear dear president. I was once christian, hell I'm even confirmed in the church! I looked at religion and up until 3 whole years ago I felt that god was my savoir and all that. I used to think just like you. Then I looked at other religions, I asked questions, and never got answers, I looked and looked but religion seemed to deny me any real explination whatsoever. I reviewed the bible and had my friend read me excerpts from the torah. I found everything to be "bullshit" as you say. So no, Atheists don't just randomly dismiss your religion as "bullshit" we get facts and actually read. what a concept. I have no grudge against you but your dead wrong in that catagory.

oh but of course there are idiots who will randomly deny god cause they "feel" like it and those who blindly follow god cause they're afraid of hell. I hate these people. And I see some of them in this thread as well. (not you but others)

Amaretti, I like your logic, very true.