Sea

Sloppy, overreaching skepticism may very well be hurting us Atheists more than it helps. The Skeptics Annotated Bible is an embarrassment. The poster above who said "wholly babble" is an embarrassment. Junk like that doesn't make Christians question their beliefs, it reinforces the stereotype that Atheists are fools who only seem smart to themselves.

It's simple. When presented with an opposing viewpoint, a ridiculous element makes it easy to dismiss the rest. Most people don't ignore bad points and pick out the best point to wrestle with seriously.

The God Delusion makes this mistake by equating general Theism with special creation. If special creation is wrong, there must not be a God! Ug. Dawkins makes plenty of other, good points in his book, but Christians aren't going to be challenged by them with such an easy out.

If seminary were sufficient to "fully understand the Bible," there wouldn't be hundreds of Christian sects who disagree about what the Bible says. There are ways to educate one's self about the (relatively few) interpretationally significant language issues without learning to read Hebrew and Greek. This is coming from someone who did take ancient Greek in college and scored well.

If an Atheist told a Christian she didn't understand her Bible if she couldn't identify a Hebrew word, I have little doubt you would call it a silly stunt. As you should.

bleubird

It is all very simple.
It is all about high priest(shaman)that found a way to get a meal.
So they did not have to work.
that is all there is.

bleu

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure how this deals with the point made; and as for accusations that Jesus said we must hate our parents, made by atheists, didn't I see just such a thread a while back?

The reply seems rather odd to me, and indeed more an insinuation than an argument. Should someone make the argument explicitly, whatever it is, then it can be dealt with. It looks like some form of accusation of dishonesty, which is tireseome.

Don't we all.

But equally, surely, we should look for answers to the questions others ask, and to do something more than repeat hearsay? For this post was simply stuffed with such. Why not think for yourself?

Thus you posted:

These are curious claims, and very, very stale. Have you considered whether these statements are true, sensible, or relevant? You're in BC&H; there are plenty of people here who know about the transmission of texts.

For instance, if you could produce ancient sources that pass your own criteria and tell us that the documents of the New Testament are by unknown authors, I'm sure we would be interested to see them. In fact all you're doing is repeating hearsay from modern times. I don't think that is a very impressive argument.

The demand for autograph copies is likewise rather odd, and again indicative of a deep lack of education. Didn't you question this one at all? For instance, I presume that you own a number of books; how many of these, I wonder, are extant in autograph?

How many ancient texts are extant in autograph? If none, what is the point of such an observation? Are you saying that no text is an accurate copy unless it is a photocopy? Or what?

One reason why atheist apologetic leaves me cold is that so much of it consists of believing whatever sounds convenient and denying what is inconvenient. It's no way to establish the facts.

Well, I'm going to take a small risk and push back on this comment.

The points about autographs have been made in this forum over a number of years; yet I don't see any awareness of these issues in your comments. So -- in your own terms -- is this silence because of (a) ignorance, (b) dishonesty, (c) a wish to keep co-believers calm and in ignorance, (d) or all of the above?

Unfair question? Indeed so. I merely point out that we can all ask these "questions" of those with whom we disagree. Please don't.

The REAL reason you posted this material, as we both know, is not wilful dishonesty or a sinister plan to injure your fellow man. It is that you don't know much about the subject, heard this stuff, found that it suited what you wanted to believe, and repeated it in good faith. We have all done the same, and it is inevitable, because most of us do not know everything about everything. Perhaps, when we find someone saying something we believe is wrong, we might (a) consider whether they ARE wrong first and (b) if they are, having checked our facts, suppose that they are merely mistaken, rather than hardened haters hell-bent on deception?

The tendency of atheists to suppose the latter every time someone disagrees with them does more to bring atheism into contempt than any other single factor, in my experience.

The remainder of this post consists of hearsay excuses, mingled with self-praise, which again is either amusing or tiresome, depending on how cynical we are. More self-scepticism would be better, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mrunicycler

The 'answer' to the 'problems' is called apologetics. Meaning, if I may, that the problems with biblical consistency can only be explained away using fallacious arguments.

I don't know, did you? I didn't. It seems to me that someone who makes such arrogant posts about looking for answers should do so.
It is neither an insinuation nor an argument.

It is an accusation. The accusation is this: People write apologetics that enable believers to keep believing, in order to get rich and not out of any sort of purity of heart or intent. Look at the Falwells, the Bakers, the Haggards. The christian religion is lead by demogogues and fakers.

No. Not everyone looks for answers to their own questions. At least, not well. Once a person finds the answer they want to hear, they generally stop looking. This is especially true of people who might be embarrassed to find that they were wrong, or were duped, as in duped into giving alot of money to something that falsely proclaimed to offer them salvation.
Why is this? If I've studied something, or don't care to study something, why should I care to look for answers that someone else is curious about? This seems to be a sort of ad hominem, attempting to make the original poster look uncharitable, but is really nothing but BS.
Why don't you try to explain where it was stuffed with hearsay, so that we can discuss it, instead of snidely proclaiming there are flaws without specifying where the flaws are.
If they aren't true, sensible, or relevant, do you think it would be sensible to point it out in a way that comes across as less pompous and more specific?

For instance, how are they irrelevant? How they insensible? Or, are you just trying for that ad hominem again? I ask because it seems a hypocritical thing for a christian to do...
But, the documents of the NT are from unknown authors. They may date to nearer the year 0 than many think, but we don't know the authors. The NIV bible I have even attests to this by saying that, for instance, 1Peter shows consistency with other works and so is thought to have been written by the same person, but also that 'some claim that the idiomatic Greek of this letter is beyond Peter's confidence.' I found this is in the first book I looked at when I opened my babble.

If the writers of a babble admit that they don't know who wrote a book then it can pretty well be said that it isn't known who wrote a book.
No one asked for autographed copies. She wanted to know who the original authors were, and where she can find the originals.

Again, that the earliest copies are older than many think does not make them original. And, I bet the books she has (other than the bible) have print dates, dates given where the editions are marked and who published them, and she can go there and find the original texts, or proof of how the originals were copied. She can investigate the methods used by the publishing industry, she can look to see if what they say they do matches up against what they do, and can decide for herself if her copies match the original.

This can't be done with the babble. This never could have been done with the babble.

So much of a christian's argument consists of reading into things that which is not said, and attacking it. It's called a strawman argument. It's no way to establish facts.
However, the tendency for people to claim they are christian in order to be able to lie without getting caught, or defend themselves from accusations of dishonesty, etc. is clear evidence that there is either a) a tendency in the christian faith to hide behind their religion, or b) a tendency in people claiming to be of that faith who are taking advantage of other's trust of people claiming to be of that religion. Either way, in my experience, people claiming they should be trusted just because they're christian are not to be trusted at all. So, if someone randomly makes an error, I will assume they are merely mistaken, unless they at the same time say, "this is the truth, and I'm christian,' at which point I immediately question everything the person has ever told me.
Take some of your own advice, and throw in a dash of arrogance in how you come across. I mean, there's nothing in my philosophy that says arrogance is bad (as long as it isn't overdone or used in a way meant to demean others), but surely a christian would wish to be seen as humble?
same

Roger Pearse

Editing out the context is not a useful way to discuss things.

The remainder of the post really just ignores my comments in favour of posting assertions copied from stock atheist polemic. None of deserves any comment.

I will comment on one particularly unfortunate statement.

Quite what you imagine an "original" is, I'm not sure. A copy of a text written by the author is known as an "autograph."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mrunicycler

I edited nothing. The quote feature may have edited something. I did not. If you think my context is wrong, please resupply it.

LOL.

So, you think that because I didn't know the word 'autograph' is used to refer to works in an author's handwriting, it dampens the impact of the fact that not only are there no such copies, but no one even knows who the original authors were. You think that that I assumed your request for 'autographs' was satire meant to show the ridiculousness of looking for original copies, all of my arguments are somehow not worth looking at...

Ad hominem, again. Nice fail. Next time, try pointing out my misunderstanding in the polite way a meek christian should, and then address the rest of the arguments that the mistake doesn't impact.

What I mean by 'original' is the original manuscript...which I recognize now, thanks to another of your snide, nearly-unhelpful and very unchristian posts, is that the 'autograph' is the original (or, at least, is copied from the original by the author himself, and so is unlikely to contain the kind of errors other copies have).

/sarcasm Thanks ever so much for being the helpful person you are /sarcasm.

JoeWallack

IBelieveInHymn:

JW:
Hmmm. So we have another Christian who claims to tell us what the Hebrew means without knowing Hebrew. As Yoshi Barra said, "Sounds like Deja Jew all over again."



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

P.S. As always, where the hell is Jeffrey Gibson when you really need him?

Susan2

Well Joseph, you could always share that information, in the spirit of helpfulness/altruism, or you can quit complaining.

ETA: I am sure there are a lot of things that Christians, and other misunderstand about the Jews. Maybe you could be more helpful?

JoeWallack

JW:
Or I could play good coptic/bad coptic with spin.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page (emphasized for S2)

DancesWithCoffeeCups

I don't know, I've never made the claim. The claim made by IBIH is that for every discrepancy, contradiction or question that one may have regarding the bible there is an answer. That the answer is inadequate or that there may be 13,000 different answers needs to be pointed out. I did. I called it what it is, IMO. Apologetics.

It is my opinion on the matter. Apologetics is big business. People earn their living "interpreting" scripture for their various flocks. Some of it is probably outright dishonesty, some of it I'm sure they sincerely believe.



I did. All by myself. I didn't discover this forum until long after I'd drawn my own conclusions. I've gained further knowledge since coming here, but my conclusions just happened to agree with many people who participate here in BC&H.

Of course I have. Please provide me with the names of the OT and NT authors.

Then please provide me with the names of the OT and NT authors.

I questioned them, obviously. Provide me with the information I asked for and we'll go from there. That seems fair to me, wouldn't you agree?

What I said and will continue to say is: No one knows who authored the OT and there are very few known authors of the NT. True or false? The rest of what you're attributing to me I didn't say.

Then please list for me the authors of the OT and the NT and refer me to some original documents, rather than copies of copies. That's all I've ever asked for.

It is a statement of fact. Give me the names of the authors of the OT and the NT. Show me the original works that the copies were made from. Do we know who all the authors of the OT and NT are? Yes or no.

As to your assigning motive to my questions, assign away. It doesn't bother me in the least. I will continue to state what I know: We do not know who authored the OT and do not know all of the authors of the NT save some of the Pauline Epistles.

Unfair? Heck no. Questions are good. My questioning of the bible, it's authorship, and the various claims made in the bible was what lead me, ultimately to atheism. Not quite as simple as that, but you get the idea.

All you have to do is list for me the authors of the OT, the NT and provide me with the original documents that were translated into the various bibles that are in circulation today. I myself don't claim to know everything. I don't see in my post where I do. So now all you have to do is list for me all the authors of the OT, the NT and provide me with the original copies. Simple.

Self praise? Seriously?

The reason that I wanted to discuss this issue with IBIH is because it's common for Christians to come to this forum and they spend their time in GRD or EoG (which is also where I hang out). Over the years I've often invited them to come to BC&H. I'm well aware that many of the participants here know a hell of a lot more than I do. This was really just a little test. In all my years here, this is one place that a lot of the hit and run Christians avoid like the plague, and I've always wondered why that is.