FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-28-2001, 11:52 PM   #21
svensky
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Emerald City, Oz
Posts: 130
Post

turtnom, i notice you make a point about stories, fiction from the time, other gospels etc.

But just one question,

You have actually read the 4 gospels, and maybe some of the ones that where dropped from the cannon. Right ? Seems like an awfully strong statement if you haven't. May i encourage you if you haven't to actually read the texts before making up your mind.

I do remember when i was an athiest, prior to becoming a christian, that i would shoot my mouth off about the claims of the bible without actually having a clue as to its content.

Jason
svensky is offline  
Old 11-24-2001, 10:18 PM   #22
Sauron
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by kaidi06:
<STRONG>Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell.

I read on another messageboard (volume.com) that this book "answers all the questions you ever want to know about the Bible from how it was formed, why some books werent included, the languages and translations, to recent physical/archaeological evidence that all are in favor of the Bible; and thats just a small portion of the book."</STRONG>
You'll find that his 'physical/archaeological evidence' doesn't stand up.

For example, McDowell claims that:
  • the city of Tyre was destroyed and never rebuilt(both claims are false);
    Sidon was spared devastation (it was not);
    Babylon was destroyed by the Medes (it was not);
    Edom was destroyed (not only is this wrong, but McDowell mistakes the stone city of Petra for Edom);

One thing to note in that in his most recent repring of this book, the chapter that deals with archaeological evidence (Ch. 11) was entirely left out - most likely because he has received so many rebuttals to the claims that it was too embarrassing to print it any further.
Sauron is offline  
Old 11-25-2001, 05:03 AM   #23
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by svensky:
<STRONG>But just one question,

You have actually read the 4 gospels, and maybe some of the ones that where dropped from the cannon. Right ? Seems like an awfully strong statement if you haven't. May i encourage you if you haven't to actually read the texts before making up your mind.

I do remember when i was an athiest, prior to becoming a christian, that i would shoot my mouth off about the claims of the bible without actually having a clue as to its content.

Jason</STRONG>
Jas,

I've read all of the canonical and many of the extracanonical gospels. They are no more convincing than the many other religious books I've read, including the Bhagavad-Gita, the extremely tedious Book of Mormon, Chuang Tze, Lao Tze, the Yi Ching, the Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead, and of course, the many tales of N'gai I heard in Africa, and others. I make a point of reading major religious works (including the Bible, cover to cover), so that when people attack me for not having read their Book, I can point out its singularly null effect on me.

I also have a shelf full of scholarly works on the NT and the Bible, as well as on Chinese philosophy and religion. My wife being an ardent Tibetan Buddhist, we also have several shelves full of material from that religion in Chinese and English.

In any case, one does not have to know much about the NT to point out the obvious fact that there are no gods, humans do not rise from the dead, demons do not cause mental illness, the dead do not rise from their graves and walk, and virgins do not give birth. These are fairy stories, just like those of the Taoist Immortals or Krishna.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 11-25-2001, 08:51 PM   #24
lpetrich
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Isabeau:
<STRONG>I doubt very much that any book could ever really prove that the Bible is completely credible - that's where 'faith' steps in to fill in 'gaps' in human history ...
</STRONG>
Whatever "faith" is supposed to be, other than Mark Twain's supposed view that it is when you believe something when you know it isn't true.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 07:35 AM   #25
Kharakov
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fidel
Posts: 3,383
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by turtonm:
<STRONG>
In any case, one does not have to know much about the NT to point out the obvious fact that there are no gods, humans do not rise from the dead, demons do not cause mental illness, the dead do not rise from their graves and walk, and virgins do not give birth. These are fairy stories, just like those of the Taoist Immortals or Krishna.

Michael</STRONG>
Spoken like a true fundie.

Obvious fact? The correct term is 'personal belief'.

You cannot prove whether any story you hear is true or false, although repeated affirmations of a story / prophecy / theory (like Einstein's G&S relativity) lead many to have faith that the prophecy is correct, until we observe something that appears to disprove the prophecy / theory (like quantum entanglement in the case of faster than light "travel").
Kharakov is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 07:52 AM   #26
Kosh
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Kharakov:
<STRONG>

Spoken like a true fundie.

Obvious fact? The correct term is 'personal belief'.
</STRONG>
"Scratch the skin of a Fundie, and you'll
find an athiest. Scratch the skin of an
athiest, and you'll find a Fundie"
- Quote from somewhere in the SecWeb Lib.
Kosh is offline  
Old 11-28-2001, 12:23 PM   #27
DB_Hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 755
Post

Sounds like Leto II:

"Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me most. I distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and you find a closet aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first, the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course, all bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find this even under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's that patterns are repeated..."

DB
DB_Hunter is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.