However, millions of people have read the bible and interprited it as what it is: an interesting piece of historical fiction. Discrepancies abound, one of the most obvious is that if the bible is the word of God, the god screwed up by not speaking in a language that would survive for all time. A perfect truth can be translated into any language and remain intact, for instance mathematics. Discrepancies exhist, and only the most fanatical fundie denies this. The question is, why do they exhist? Did god screw up? Or did he just change his mind like he did through out the old testament, and particularly in the new?

x-Xtian, reformed follower of the bastard son of a fallable manmade god.

Wow.

"However, millions of people have read the bible and interprited it as what it is: an interesting piece of historical fiction."

And millions of people have read the bible and interpreted as the revealed truth of God. Of what relevance is the numbers game?

"Discrepancies abound, one of the most obvious is that if the bible is the word of God, the god screwed up by not speaking in a language that would survive for all time."

Umm. God screwed up by not putting the interpetation of the Bible beyond the common language of the time and into a mathmetical system that only a couple of dozen people TODAY would understand (and how many in the First Century)?

"A perfect truth can be translated into any language and remain intact, for instance mathematics."

What is your authority for that breathtakingly unsupported statement? And what is the difference between "the perfect truth" and just "the truth?"

"Discrepancies exhist, and only the most fanatical fundie denies this."

Not true. ALL fundies, by definition deny that discrepancies exhist. Of course, if you believe that ALL fundies are FANATICS then your statement was simply a redundant one.

"The question is, why do they exhist? Did god screw up? Or did he just change his mind like he did through out the old testament, and particularly in the new?"

Actually, I think he's done a pretty good job of ensuring the transmission of the New Testament at least. As for the discrepancies, to the extent they exist I would blame them on the humans authoring the New Testament. I don't think inspiration necessarily forecloses human error.

"x-Xtian, reformed follower of the bastard son of a fallable manmade god."

Reformed skeptic who found faith through history and personal experience.

I find humor in the fact that most replies are 2 to 3 times longer than the original topic. I used mathematics as an example of a "pure language".
Rather than defend my initial comment, I will just use a very christian defence: I have faith that I am right and nothing you say, no matter how logical, can convince me otherwise.


Just kidding. I am always open to new thoughts, and only a "fundie" doesn't accept criticism with an open mind. Keep trying, and if nothing else you may talk yourself to death and wind up in heaven,

It is quite interesting that Hebrew is the only dead language ever to be resurrected.

Also, the Bible is only a closed language for those who are too lazy to study it. For those that do, it is pure language.

Mathematics is just as conveluted a language for those who do not study it. For those that do study it, it also is pure language.

The degree of study is the degree of comprehension

[This message has been edited by Josephus (edited February 03, 2001).]

If we do not have standards, then we will not have any means of determining the value or veracity of a person/thing/event.

One of the standards for holy books must be that they be inspired and supervised by gods to ensure that they contain pure truth and no discrepancies/contradictions/confusions.

In the presence of discrepancies/contradictions/confusions we have a right to conclude that so-called holy books are not inspired/supervised by gods and therefore are not holy books.

Note that the absence of discrepancies/contradictions/confusions does not identify a holy book, for we would still have the problem of verifying the contents, but the presence of discrepancies/contradictions/confusions does indeed condemn a holy book.

If this standard for evaluating holy books is not acceptable, should we have ANY standards?

What standards ought to be acceptable?

The Xn bible contains contradictions and therefore, by the standard set above, cannot be accepted as a holy book.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited February 03, 2001).]

Umm... JragonFli?

I looked, and I looked, and you did not actually RESPOND to a single thing Layman actually said.

Have the Atheist Troll schools shut down for the month of February and left them free to post on discussion boards? We seem to have more than our usual share right now, so I was just wondering.

Nomad

Of course.

Why? Does the Bible say that it is actually completely free of discrepancies/contradictions/confusions? My reading of it tells me that God made it deliberately confusing to the non-believer, and He appears to have succeeded in spades.

The question that would then offer itself, is why would God do this?

While you have the right, you would not necessarily be right. Again, you have yet to demonstrate exactly why God is required to keep the Bible simple (and by simple, I mean simple enough that everyone would believe it automatically).

All I can say here is go to work with Baalthazaq and prove that the Qu'ran has any discrepancies/contradictions/confusions in it. Thus far I have yet to see a single atheist pull this off, and yet none of them appear to be any closer to actually believing in this holy book.

Personally, I suspect an element of disengenousness here.

Yes.

This needs more thought, but is a tremendous question. I think it needs a separate thread.

If I may ask, what would convince YOU that a book was truly from God?

Unsupported assertions do not advance an argument Bob. I'm still waiting for a response on the Nazareth thing BTW.

Nomad

"Rather than defend my initial comment, I will just use a very christian defence: I have faith that I am right and nothing you say, no matter how logical, can convince me otherwise."

As I am sure you noticed, I (being a Christian) did not say that I have faith and that nothing you say could convince me otherwise. Rather, I extended you the courtesy of attempting to provide a reasoned response to your post.

However, from what I have seen on this board (so far at least), your response IS the typical atheist response to reasoned criticisms of their posts.

"In the presence of contradictions/confusions we have a right to conclude that so-called holy books are not inspired/supervised by gods and therefore are not holy books."

Boy, you must win a lot of arguments. Considering that you get to define the rules all by your lonesome.

Just as our inability to find the tomb of Christ doesn't defeat the historicity of Jesus, proving that the "holy books" contain contradictions doesn't defeat the historicity of Christianity's most important claim: the resurrection of Jesus. We don't worship the book (at least I don't), we worship Jesus. The fact that the bookS may imperfectly record his teachings and actions does not make him imperfect. Especially if he chose to work through imperfect human vessels.

And you are also overlooking a BIG problem in your argument. One that makes your task less simple than you claim. The Bible is not A BOOK, it is dozens of BOOKS. Protestants, at least, agree that while the scripture may be inspired, the canon is not. The fact that ALL of the modern canon may contain internal contradictions, doesn't prove that EVERY book in the modern canon is imperfect.

Capish?

You fundies are funny. I love to see the dances you do to avoid a destruction of your false beliefs. You all are quite creative.

Layman and Nomad, here is a concept for you to consider. Credibility....

Jragon really cornered you here, it was nice to see that Nomad at least acknowledged it, but was non-responsive.

In everyday life, people live on their ability to determine the credibility of something. In short, to know what is BS and what isn't. The best tool we have for this is to validate something based on external references, and to measure it's consistency. The bible is short in both areas. I'm not gonna muddy up this thread with examples, but I am sure you would agree if you know the bible. If you aren't convinced, here is a link.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/...ctions0.html#4

How can an infallible god make so many logical mistakes. Are you going to tell me that there is some lesson in the inconsistency? Please tell me what this lesson could possibly be. If I'm gonna put my faith in some god, he better be able to keep his story strait.

Here is a quote from you Nomad, this is hilarious


Why? Does the Bible say that it is actually completely free of discrepancies/contradictions/confusions? My reading of it tells me that God made it deliberately confusing to the non-believer, and He appears to have succeeded in spades.


You are saying that god has installed contradictions into the bible to exclude from heaven anyone that requires some degree of credibility in their god? Man, you don't even know your own religion. Ever heard of evangelism.



[This message has been edited by dmvprof (edited February 06, 2001).]