4Figgy
Member
So you don't have a problem with something that has absolutely zero evidence to support it, but the Bible which does have evidence to support it is 100% fake? You’re grasping at straws here....
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Why there almost certainly is No God!!
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
Evidence?
4Figgy
Member
Yes. Multiple writing by different people who had first hand accounts of what happened (New Testament). Also other historians (Tacitus and Josephus) who wrote about Jesus. Archaeological evidence. The same types of evidence used for other historical things historians assume to be true. You don’t get to pick and choose what history to believe based off the same criteria used as evidence for them.
Villain
Member
Bible Reliability-Manuscripts
Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manuscript copies of the original documents penned by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External.
The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious textual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.
We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.
The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident.
The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.
The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers.
The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again.
Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.
Bible Reliability-Archaeology
Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of solid archaeological evidence.
For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent while he was away from Babylon.
One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Bible Reliability-Prophecy
The Bible records predictions of events that could not be known or predicted by chance or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular argument (by liberals) against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that the prophecies actually were written after the events and that editors had merely dressed up the Bible text to look like they contained predictions made before the events. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. The many predictions of Christ’s birth, life and death (see below) were indisputably rendered more than a century before they occurred as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah and other prophetic books as well as by the Septuagint translation, all dating from earlier than 100 B.C.
Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones, timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa. 23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21).
Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to deliberately conspire to fulfill — such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24); His birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of His hands and feet at the crucifixion (Ps. 22:16); the soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18); the piercing of His side and the fact that His bones were not broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and resurrection (John 2:19-22).
Bible Reliability-Statistics
It is Statistically preposterous that any or all of the Bible’s very specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit. When you look at some of the improbable prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, it seems incredible that skeptics — knowing the authenticity and historicity of the texts — could reject the statistical verdict: the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God, just as Scripture predicted many times and in many ways.
The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by forty different human authors in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), on hundreds of subjects. And yet there is one consistent, noncontradictory theme that runs through it all: God’s redemption of humankind. Clearly, Statistical probability is a powerful indicator of the trustworthiness of Scripture.
I'll bite.
I spent a year of my life pouring through textual criticism, the most scholarly commentaries.
What do we know. Nothing.
You have manuscripts, scribes, coping scribes, copying scribes, copies of copies. The number of copies is irrelevant, the oldest manuscripts the dead sea scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus which is the oldest copy of the complete NT which dates to the 4th century.
So with that out of the way.
What do we have. The Dead Sea Scrolls were never signed by anyone, they are valuable and line up with other copies that appear later. The Jews wrote a vast quantity that parallel what is written in their accepted books, but were considered perhaps too outlandish to be canonical, these writings dwarf what is in the 17 books of the old testatment. Just take a look at the two volume set of "The OT Pseudepigrapha" that was assembled by Charlesworth. Free PDF if you're interested:
https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/docum...pocalyptic Literature and Testaments 1983.pdf
When I sat down and read through these writings and realized that the Jews had written vastly more outside of the bible than what was allowed to be included in the bible, it pretty much told me that yes the Jews liked to write, they enjoy story telling, they use their surroundings as a jumping off point to create fantastical tales. Any of this Pseudepigrapha matieral could have been included in the bible, sometimes it is when it comes to certain denominations like the Ethiopian Orthodox.
Ultimately every path I went down to try to figure out if there was any evidence for the supernatural tales led to a dead end. There simply is no way to prove any of the fantastical tales of the bible.
With critical commentaries the bible can be torn apart, the contradictions pointed out, plagiarism borrowing myths from other older middle eastern cultures, famous sayings falsely attributed patriarchs of the bible that really came from Babylonian and Assyrian writings falsely credited to prophets like Moses, who most Jewish scholars agree there's no evidence for his existence and Egyptologist can find absolutely no evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt or wondering their desert for 40 years.
So what are you stuck with. You have claims in writing. Not unlike the outlandish claims you find in others writings from other culture and religions.
No one questions whether the Vedas are some of the oldest religious text which belong to the Hindus. Does it mean it's true. Most Christians would have no problem saying it's a work of the devil.
The buddhists that predate Jesus by 500 years. They have their own mythology, is there any real proof that the Buddha existed, well we have their sanga(religious followers) that didn't leave a whole lot behind and the King Ashoka Indian Emperor that adopted Buddhism and built monuments/relics about 150 years after the Buddha was said to have died. Did the buddha actually live, probably because his life story tells of him dying of dysentery possibly from food poisoning. Seems like a completely natural way to die. Was any of the other supernatural tales about him true, no. We would have no problem not believing many of the myths about the buddha, especially since there is no closed canon, that these stories could be added to for a long time after the Buddhas death allowing for them to be embellished, once again the pissing contest of religions, who's got the best prophet, teacher...ect.
Without rambling for a long time. I can assure you that I've studied most religions, read through lots of texts, Hindu, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Christian, Islamic and none of them strike me as convincing. They all make claims that can't be proven, clearly the Abrahamic religions are extremely violent or have a punishment overtone to them that turns my stomach.
Religions built off the idea that it is a virtue to believe, that if you profess your belief in a savior or a God then you will get your reward after you die, this to me is very troubling and quit frankly extremely sick.
I can have at least some respect for the darma based religions as they ask the practitioner to test their teachings and if they aren't true to discard them....especially the Buddhist which is an atheist religion denying Brahma or God as the first cause or that it even exists.
I spent a year of my life pouring through textual criticism, the most scholarly commentaries.
What do we know. Nothing.
You have manuscripts, scribes, coping scribes, copying scribes, copies of copies. The number of copies is irrelevant, the oldest manuscripts the dead sea scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus which is the oldest copy of the complete NT which dates to the 4th century.
So with that out of the way.
What do we have. The Dead Sea Scrolls were never signed by anyone, they are valuable and line up with other copies that appear later. The Jews wrote a vast quantity that parallel what is written in their accepted books, but were considered perhaps too outlandish to be canonical, these writings dwarf what is in the 17 books of the old testatment. Just take a look at the two volume set of "The OT Pseudepigrapha" that was assembled by Charlesworth. Free PDF if you're interested:
https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/docum...pocalyptic Literature and Testaments 1983.pdf
When I sat down and read through these writings and realized that the Jews had written vastly more outside of the bible than what was allowed to be included in the bible, it pretty much told me that yes the Jews liked to write, they enjoy story telling, they use their surroundings as a jumping off point to create fantastical tales. Any of this Pseudepigrapha matieral could have been included in the bible, sometimes it is when it comes to certain denominations like the Ethiopian Orthodox.
Ultimately every path I went down to try to figure out if there was any evidence for the supernatural tales led to a dead end. There simply is no way to prove any of the fantastical tales of the bible.
With critical commentaries the bible can be torn apart, the contradictions pointed out, plagiarism borrowing myths from other older middle eastern cultures, famous sayings falsely attributed patriarchs of the bible that really came from Babylonian and Assyrian writings falsely credited to prophets like Moses, who most Jewish scholars agree there's no evidence for his existence and Egyptologist can find absolutely no evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt or wondering their desert for 40 years.
So what are you stuck with. You have claims in writing. Not unlike the outlandish claims you find in others writings from other culture and religions.
No one questions whether the Vedas are some of the oldest religious text which belong to the Hindus. Does it mean it's true. Most Christians would have no problem saying it's a work of the devil.
The buddhists that predate Jesus by 500 years. They have their own mythology, is there any real proof that the Buddha existed, well we have their sanga(religious followers) that didn't leave a whole lot behind and the King Ashoka Indian Emperor that adopted Buddhism and built monuments/relics about 150 years after the Buddha was said to have died. Did the buddha actually live, probably because his life story tells of him dying of dysentery possibly from food poisoning. Seems like a completely natural way to die. Was any of the other supernatural tales about him true, no. We would have no problem not believing many of the myths about the buddha, especially since there is no closed canon, that these stories could be added to for a long time after the Buddhas death allowing for them to be embellished, once again the pissing contest of religions, who's got the best prophet, teacher...ect.
Without rambling for a long time. I can assure you that I've studied most religions, read through lots of texts, Hindu, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Christian, Islamic and none of them strike me as convincing. They all make claims that can't be proven, clearly the Abrahamic religions are extremely violent or have a punishment overtone to them that turns my stomach.
Religions built off the idea that it is a virtue to believe, that if you profess your belief in a savior or a God then you will get your reward after you die, this to me is very troubling and quit frankly extremely sick.
I can have at least some respect for the darma based religions as they ask the practitioner to test their teachings and if they aren't true to discard them....especially the Buddhist which is an atheist religion denying Brahma or God as the first cause or that it even exists.
It’s funny how you all are posting on the Bible, yet there are MANY other religions with written books and historical proof they existed.
It’s funny that no matter what country you’re born in......you’re always born into the “right” religion.
Villain
Member
That’s generally what happens because generations pass it along. Most religions are part of the culture as well, however there are also many who convert out of their cultural religions. Great example is actually Islam and how it’s a cultural religion as well as a converting religion. You have tons of Malaysians who by all means should be named traditional Malaysian names, yet they have Arabic names. So in that sense, the former “right” religions that they were born into pre Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam was Animism and Dynamism. So which of those was the right religion the Malaysians were born into?
chileandawg
New Member
Wait a minute, and the apple and the Grow and multiply, that is a evolution metaphor to me.
Anyway you dont get my point. Creationism a is philosopic theory that trying to explain trought the christian bible the meaning of evolution but that is a reductionism.
Trying to say that even with just an a biblical reason to justify that paradigm, creationism is not a coherent track to explain the meaning of life, the meaning of existence. You know, pinning test-enanthate is great but is more than that.
Villain
Member
I honestly wish I knew what you were actually trying to say.
I've already mentioned that if you were born in Saudi you'd be a Sunni muslim, India-Hindu, Japan-Shinto, Iran-Shia Muslim, China-Athiest, Tibet or Nepal- Mahayana Buddhist, Africa-voodoo, United States-Christain, Native American/Mongolian - Animist.....and so on.
The human mind is geared towards religion, it will create a religion if the culture doesn't provide one. Obviously most people will follow their own culture dominant religion. Those like myself that are atheist to all forms of religion are viewed as a threat and by Christians as evil for denying the savior of the world that apparently needed to be killed in a blood and guts manner to prove that Yahweh only accepts those that give everything they've got.
For me all religions are sick, all lead down a dead end path, one where you and you alone either have to fix your own problems or just accept that life sucks and that's the way it is.
Who really wants to be handed a rule book for life, one where you have a list of things you can't do, even if you enjoy doing them, you can't do them because some goat herders listed it as a sin.
Either way I've found Christian and Muslims to be impossible to be around, they're attitudes towards any vulgarity, any whiff of impropriety makes being around them extremely suffocating to human desire for freedom to enjoy life how I see fit without someone casting their eyes in disdain for my behavior. The Christians have hijacked America, claiming this country as there's, that it was founded on their religion. This is the one thing that pisses me off more than anything else.
First the Natives were living here long before the fuckhead Christians showed up. So for 5000 years this dirt belonged to them. How about 50,000 years ago, who did this dirt belong to, 1 million years ago who did it belong to? This pile of dirt called the United States doesn't belong to some religion, it doesn't belong to anyone. All of us will die someday, none of us have a right to say this dirt is Christian dirt, so I would urge the jackass politicians to shut their mouths about this God stuff, stop inserting God into our politics and just mind their own business.
chileandawg
New Member
sintax or meaning?
Are you using a translator? I mean obviously sintax is spelled syntax.
I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just wondering because I find your posts almost impossible to read.
chileandawg
New Member
Sorry, but some of my ideas are complex and I´m English is not the best. Anyway, in a few word, creationism is a biological theory to justify the moral legitimagy of the biblical process, better?
I'm not sure if it's a biological theory. The garden of eden appears to be a collection of myths taken from other cultures, we see it in Egyptian artwork with the underworld and the serpent. We see the Greek had a concept of a paradise where there is no sickness, old age, pain or suffering.
There's nothing remotely historical about it, it's just another story the Jews borrowed to include in their creation myth and how they eventually became the chosen to spread the message that we should kiss their ass if we want to be in Yahweh's good graces.
There's nothing remotely historical about it, it's just another story the Jews borrowed to include in their creation myth and how they eventually became the chosen to spread the message that we should kiss their ass if we want to be in Yahweh's good graces.
chileandawg
New Member
Yes man, garden of eden philosophically could being interpreted like an ontological condition to life, but nothing more. Evolutions is more than that a condition.
4Figgy
Member
I’m saying as a Christian you can argue both sides. Evolution doesn’t disprove anything in the Bible.
It seems to me that the only way to have a meaning to life is through a creator. Otherwise you are left with nihilism. Any real atheist has to admit this, and if not has to explain how you get the, not a, meaning to life through chance x time x matter.
Villain
Member
You never addressed anything else, specifically the archaeology point, which not many can. Mormons tell someone pretty far out stories that supposedly happened here in the US, yet none of it has even been substantiated by archaeology.
Nihilism is a brutally honest view of life. Most people aren't willing to take it to that level of skepticism, cynicism, free thought because it scares them. It can be very tough to fit in with mainstream society once you stare into the abyss as Nietzsche would say and the abysss stares back.
I have plenty of money, but don't give a shit about money, I own very little and don't seem to care what I look like to others. I see people as strange in their concern and obsession over materialism or how they keep up appearances, caught up in how people see them. I simply have lost interests in what excites most people, love, relationships, concern for fellow man that makes most of his own problems because he chases after things that cause problems.
An atheist, anarchist like myself spends time trying to tear down everything that has meaning in life, trying to shed all that weighs mankind down, asking over and over for everything to justify its existence. You really aren't left with much when you do this and people in America, that are highly motivated towards competition and acquisition, you are viewed as a menace when you start pointing out flaws and picking at loose threads, threatening to unravel the dream world most live in.
I think there are those people like myself that started out in life not talking to my parents until I was 5, there was nothing wrong with me, I just didn't feel like talking according to the shrink. I was always studying those around me, watching their activity and wondering why they did what they do. Seemed odd to me that they should care about things that matter so little, often getting angry and nasty because I didn't share their sense of urgency over matters I consider petty.
Archaeology was addressed. I pointed out that the bible uses real places and people as jumping off points to create a story.
It's not complete fantasy.
It's similar to what I spoke of earlier, by claiming my next door neighbors car levitated off the ground and shot off into the sky. The neighbor has a sports car that matches my description, however the rest of the fantastical story can't be backed up with evidence.
The Jews really didn't leave much behind, most of their buildings were primitive compared to what the Egyptians left behind. The Jewish Temple has a wall left and a few other fragments, but it's mostly all gone. They have been looking for other temples and some claim to have found the tomb of Jesus and the stone that was rolled away, but even if it was Jesus tomb, it wouldn't matter, which Jesus was it, it was a common name back then. Jesus was 1 of the 100,000 Jews the Romans were said to have crucified. We have a place in Israel called Gehenna, this was considered to be the gateway to hell, it was a place where rubbish was burned and occasionally a place where bodies were burned of executed Jews which was considered a grave sin. So while we have Gehenna as a park in Israel today, where's the gateway to hell, it is mostly used today as a nice place to have a picnic lunch with your family.
I view Israel as a Disney world for the Christians and Jews, just like Saudi Arabia Mecca is for the Muslims, Bihar India for Buddhists, Seven cities in India for Hindus....ect.
BirdieNumNum
Banned
Fuck the rhetoric. God is a man made word. An incomprehensible power maybe. Hence why we cannot understand.
Similar threads
