Answerer

Archeology prove bible? Thats what I heard millions of times but in reality, disappointment rules if one had the courage to find out. Below are some links that might help those who are willing to help themselves:


http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...an/intro.shtml

http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/bo...is/jewhis3.htm


Anyway, my purpose is not to convince Magus55 otherwise. Rather I'm here to show to you guys how stubborn a person can be.

Magus55

Lol, read parts of the infidels link. Same dumb points that SAB makes, that have been refuted ( and even some dumber ones like where did God reside before Creation - wth - how is that an absurdity? He isn't material, He either stayed in Heaven or just was - He doesn't need a house). Sorry, very very poor attempt at disproving the Bible - just as bad as SAB, but thanks for playing!

Truthbeknown has no references. Its just one persons opinion. All it says is this is wrong, this is wrong, God's not real, blah blah blah. No evidence, no proof, no claims from any actual archaeologists ( who btw, have found the ruins of Soddom and Gomorrah). Iv'e heard this crap before - try something a little more convincing next time?

keyser_soze

Irony meter on maximum....:banghead:

Secular Pinoy

I think it's time for Magus to take the Easter Challenge.

Sauron

Uh, no. They have not.

But you're more than welcome to try and prove that.

Silent Dave

You know, it's funny how Christians manipulate reality like that -- atheist-to-Christian conversions either happen when hell freezes over, or happen all the time, depending on the specific argument being made at a given moment.


Dave

Answerer

The above is the proof of my reasons for not trying to convince Magus55 of anything. Please look at the way he is arguing and refer to my purpose in the previous post.

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

Clutch

Magus, where ya hiding?

Two points are on the table: (1) That you've first explicitly rejected and then explicitly insisted upon the acceptability of filling in details not in the strict letter of Genesis; (2) That your argument for filling in the particular details you want was an elementary fallacy.

Have you any intellectual integrity, or do you just plan on fleeing back to a fundy forum and complaining about the dirty tricks of atheists... like, pointing out the gross defects in your reasoning? Or the third option: sticking around here, but pretending none of this ever happened...

Koyaanisqatsi

There was just too much nonsense to wade through, but I think this will suffice as an example:

Ok. That means that it's in error. Which means you can't possibly know what's not in error, including anything written decades later that references an earlier work, such as the synoptics.... More later.

Which god? The god written in error about? Or are you talking about Allah, for which no contradictions in his inspired writings exist (he typed, baitedly)?

Ok. The overall picture, according to you, is that we have nothing to base a belief upon, but some 24,000 errant copies of Christian mythology due to copyist errors.

So, which is the one you based your beliefs on? The "original?" When did you read the "original?"

Oh, that's right, you have "faith" that the original was inerrant based on the teachings of all of the errant copies....


No, it does not. It may confirm the places, but it is categorically impossible for archeology to confirm the historical accuracy of the events in the bible, including the flood.

That's what a geologist would study, not an archeologist.

If you're going to employ fallacious rationalizations to support your mythology, make sure you do it with the right discipline at least.

I see. So, considering the fact that most theologians consider Mark to have been the first of the synoptics and that others simply rewrote their own versions based on Mark (and the controversial Sayings Gospel Q) then we have "apostles" making up stories based on an already made up story.

And this attests to you being able to base your beliefs on something verifiable how?

"That fast?" I can start a legend right now. It happend to me just the other day...

And you're right. Nobody in that region believed in anything so far fetched as "deities" or "prophets" or "messiahs" or "gods" for that matter. None of those silly fairy tales about the Gods of Olympus, for example, were ever believed, right? And Yahweh was a complete wash out in the region. Judaism didn't succeed, right, since it was a complete fairy tale?

You find that "reasonable" do you? So the "apostles" saw and heard Jesus' confrontation with the Devil in the wilderness, did they? Or did they just take scrupulous notes when he told them all about it so that forty years later one of them ("Mark" no less) could write it down in full.

Oh, right, he was blessed with divine inspiration, just none of the holy men who copied his work word for word did, because god has a statute of limitations when it comes to the copies (i.e., the historical accuracy to be handed down from generation to generation), right?

The only thing that mattered to god, the omniscient, capable of foreseeing all of this, was to make damn sure that nothing he inspired in the first place (accept for that magical first draft, of course) would be coherent or consistent!

Because god's just like that. Inspires only one or maybe two authors and none of the rest so that in the end no one can ever be sure of what was written!

Oh, I get it! Faith, again! Of course! That's why the scriptures all proclaim that these words are inspired by god and that anyone who changes the words or the meaning will acrue god's wrath, because they were all non-inspired copies of what god really meant to say.

Wait. How do we know that? Oh, right, because the errant copies of errant copies of errant copies tell us that this is so and we can use "common sense" to simply blindly assume that everything that's wrong in the bible is just the result of god's lapse in judgement.

So, great, we have a whole collection of completely unverifiable errors and flat out contradictions to learn of the omniscience of Yahweh. I mean, Jesus. I mean Yahweh. I mean, I AM, I AM.

That's a great formula. Let me see if I can do it, too....

Wow, that's great. Now all I have to do is instruct you to read it in the presuppositional context that the GAPTRL already exists and you've proved that this mere copy of a copy of a copy does not mean that the GAPTRL doesn't exist, right?

Assume he exists in order to assume he exists and you will have assumed that he exists. Q.E.D., right?

It's just common sense to assume something exists because something tells you to assume something exists based on the fact that no assumptions are necessary once you make that initial assumption, right?

I mean, why else would somebody write all that stuff down over and over and over again, in scrupulous, oh one might say, "god fearing," ways in order to make sure that the one true GAPTRL's actual words were passed down from generation to generation in an ultimately errant manner?

It's imperative, after all, that no one believe the bible as it is written! That's the whole point of writing it in the first place! To insure confusion so that the world comes to the GAPTRL of their own free will, right?

(relaxe; around here, mockery is the sincerest form of analogical deconstruction to illustrate incontrivertable flaws in your "reasoning")

If I gave you the books of the GAPTRL and within them the authors all stated, "This is the testament to the supreme existence of the GAPTRL, who is the way and the light and the only means to salvation" and you found repeated contradictions and outright fantasies within, wouldn't you then conclude that no such mythological creature exists?

If not, then let me tell you about a unique opportunity that has nothing to do with these silly boards and everything to do with your financial future and salvation. One word. "Bridge." The Brooklyn Bridge. Ok, two words, but with just a modest sum, I am authorized to sell you (and only you, so tell no one), not just the Brooklyn Bridge but also the very torch of Lady Liberty! You got an ATM nearby...?

A "few?" Like complete disagreement on the death and resurrection of the Son of God?

Oh, wait, sorry, that doesn't count since it has been rather convincingly established that only one author wrote that story and the others just made up their own versions based on the first one.

If you mean, do you throw out the books containing scientific errors, yes, you do. That's the purpose of science; it's dynamic and ever changing, unlike your beliefs, which were closed two thousand years ago.

God is (allegedly) not. Who inspired the bible? Or are you saying that free will intervened and only those who "truly believed" copied correctly?

"Accurate enough for its purpose," eh? And the purpose being salvation of one's immortal soul from the "second death;" i.e., the burning lake of hellfire where no less a personage as Satan burns for all eternity, right?

It's funny you should say that since the Gospel of Thomas (considered to be the actual first teaches, in essence, that you need no one to act as an intermediary between yourself and god. But, I guess that whole book was errant, right?

So, "accurate enough for its purpose..." Hmmmm. What would that mean? That a guy named Jesus--a rabbi, no less--taught people to stop throwing stones? Oh, I know! That only through him could one reach god, directly contradicting that whole errant Gospel of Thomas nonsense.

Who ever thought that was anything anyway, right?

No, you're absolutely right. When assuming something exists, one must simply assume something exists and then go to great lengths to make sure everything about that something fits the initial assumption, otherwise you might be accused of using your brain; you know, like the way you keep accusing all of us of not doing?

Koyaanisqatsi

By the way, has anyone else noted the irony of the OP: The Mindset of Rationalizing Away Bible Contradictions?