Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jaded_revenge · 05-31-2009, 10:22 PM

Just paraphrasing what everyone has been saying Bill Joey.

You seem to be arguing that because the bible is old and includes references to real life places and people. That everything in it must be true.
Do you think it is possible that somebody could write a story including real life people and places, and then perhaps add fictional elements to this story.

I have with me the Egyptian Book of the Dead, a book from around 240BC. Its older than the bible and constantly refers to real locations of temples and areas that exist in Egypt. Does that mean that Osiris and Ra and Seth are all real gods to?

lunachick · 05-31-2009, 11:07 PM

The Book of Genesis according to Rev. Ricky Gervais: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocgcj-C_nIw

Preach it, brother!

ughaibu · 05-31-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

My resource has photographs of many of these discoveries to validate the Bible. None of these are available on the web. these are just 50, but there are many books that provide far more archaeological discoveries with photos to validate the Bible.

The Bible begins with a creation story that is either true or untrue.
1) if it's true the authors had a method of reliably documenting events to which there were no human witnesses. Such a method would be of extraordinary social value as it would pretty much do away with all dishonesty. In fact, availability of the method would negate the need for the recording of the creation story, or any other event in the Bible, as all these things would be available to anyone directly employing the method. In other words, anyone possessing this method would record the method itself, not stuff that is available by the method. Anyone with the method, who didn't record and offer it to the public, would take the cake as historys most socially destructive figure
2) if it's untrue, then it's one of the vast number of widely differing creation accounts mooted by ancient people around the world.

As the above is exclusive and exhaustive, the authors of the creation story were either fabulists or criminally insane. I dont think the thoughtful reader needs to read more than the first page before rejecting any claim that the Bible is the truth.

Clivedurdle · 05-31-2009, 11:33 PM

Isn't the issue here about the term "evidence"?

BJ has a definition and a related way of arguing that we do not agree with. Result is that the volume increases and everyone ends up shouting past each other - Billy posting tracts and links, we not really getting our perspective across.

Isn't there a story about which was the voice of god - the tempest, the storm or the still small voice?

BJ has not yet put away childish things. The fact that he is here means he might listen to something.

Why do people have this huge armour of apologetics, films, links and the kjv that they carry around with them? It must be exhausting.

We put down our burdens a long time ago, BJ is so used to the weight of it all he thinks it is normal.

Maybe we need to be like Hercules and take the weight of the world off Atlas's shoulders?

Bill Joey · 06-01-2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

p Actually if you bothered to take a NTI/OTI course or at least read a good academic book on the formation of the OT/NT (Archer, Carson & Moo), then you would understand that the majority of the BEST Manuscripts agree with one another, except primarily in the area of spelling & Grammar. Check out the dead sea scrolls discovered at the caves of Quamran for example.

But there is not a necessary correlation between agreement and truth.

There are lots of contradictions and errors in the Bible.

It is very well-established that a global flood did not occur, that the earth in old, and that at least partial evolution has occurred.

There are lots of Bible Difficulties not contradictions. The difficulties are easily explained when one does research and learns. Below is a list of resources to assist you in the future with dealing with them.

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised edition. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1974.

________. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Custer, Stewart. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1968.

Geisler, Normal L., and Ronald M. Rhodes. When Skeptics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990.

Geisler, Normal L., and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992.

Grenz, Stanley J. and David Guretzki. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Patterson, R.D. and Hermann J. Austel. 1 Kings. Vol. 4 of The Expositors Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.

Provan, Iain W. 1 & 2 Kings. Vol. 7 of New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Rehwinkel, Alfred M. The Flood. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951.

Unger, Merrill F. The New Unger’s Bible Handbook. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 2005.

Wood, Leon. Distressing Days of the Judges. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.

Bill Joey · 06-01-2009, 04:10 AM

No we interpret based on Biblical theology and the Historical grammatical approach (interpret literally unless text says otherwise).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

The insertions in Mark, John, & 1 John do not altar doctrine. Mark 16:9-20 is sound doctrine, and the business about picking up snakes is not to be interpret literally, which is sadly what one apostolic church group does.

How convenient. Funny how fundamentalists switch to a metaphorical view of the bible when it suits them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

1 John 5:7 only reads (father, son, & Holy Ghost in the KJV) and is omitted from the modern translations for some reason. But the KJV is the best translation and the most reliable. The others are not reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

It is omitted because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts.

Bill Joey · 06-01-2009, 04:13 AM

Actually I did look at Modern scholarship (Carson & Moo) Introduction to the NT.

DA Carson is a conservative but not a Fundamentalist, but... he wrote an excellent work. Check it out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by temporalillusion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

Actually if you bothered to take a NTI/OTI course or at least read a good academic book on the formation of the OT/NT (Archer, Carson & Moo), then you would understand that the majority of the BEST Manuscripts agree with one another, except primarily in the area of spelling & Grammar. Check out the dead sea scrolls discovered at the caves of Quamran for example.

Actually if you bothered to look at modern scholarship you would understand that the differences go far beyond spelling and grammar, and get deep into points of doctrine, changes that were made apparently in response to alternative Christologies for example.

And that's not even touching the differences within the books of the NT itself, such as (again) the differing views on the nature of Jesus, or even salvation.

The BC&H forum is a good place to go if you really want to get into textual criticism.

Draconis · 06-01-2009, 04:23 AM

Just because some bits of temple have been found that are mentioned in the bible, that means the whole thing is true?

To take another analogy: in the movie Superman II, superman takes an about-to-explode atomic bomb placed in the Eiffel Tower by terrorists and throws it up into space where it explodes harmlessly.

2000 years later archaeologists discover a copy of the movie and there is some argument whether this is fiction or not. Then they find the mangled remnants of the eiffel tower and a copy of the script. Do these things imply that Superman actually existed? Of course not. There is no real evidence of Superman, and his assumed existence can be explained in so many alternative ways. There is certainly no firm basis for believing he can really fly or that he could create the universe, so no need to base a religion on him and forcefully indoctrinate those who aren't convinced.

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 06-01-2009, 04:56 AM

This topic is better suited to BC&H. A reminder to stick to the topic at hand, open a new thread for a new topic, and leave personal comments aside. Thanks!

show_no_mercy · 06-01-2009, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Only 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, and Philippians. The other Pauline epistles are contested, with the near consensus being that 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are pseudopigraphal.

From where does your biblical knowledge come from?

Peter Kirby's "Early Christian Writings" (1 Timothy, for example)

Also Wikipedia

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2009, 10:22 PM	#61
jaded_revenge Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Australia, Canberra Posts: 2,662	Just paraphrasing what everyone has been saying Bill Joey. You seem to be arguing that because the bible is old and includes references to real life places and people. That everything in it must be true. Do you think it is possible that somebody could write a story including real life people and places, and then perhaps add fictional elements to this story. I have with me the Egyptian Book of the Dead, a book from around 240BC. Its older than the bible and constantly refers to real locations of temples and areas that exist in Egypt. Does that mean that Osiris and Ra and Seth are all real gods to?

05-31-2009, 11:07 PM	#62
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	The Book of Genesis according to Rev. Ricky Gervais: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocgcj-C_nIw Preach it, brother!

05-31-2009, 11:33 PM	#64
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Isn't the issue here about the term "evidence"? BJ has a definition and a related way of arguing that we do not agree with. Result is that the volume increases and everyone ends up shouting past each other - Billy posting tracts and links, we not really getting our perspective across. Isn't there a story about which was the voice of god - the tempest, the storm or the still small voice? BJ has not yet put away childish things. The fact that he is here means he might listen to something. Why do people have this huge armour of apologetics, films, links and the kjv that they carry around with them? It must be exhausting. We put down our burdens a long time ago, BJ is so used to the weight of it all he thinks it is normal. Maybe we need to be like Hercules and take the weight of the world off Atlas's shoulders?

06-01-2009, 04:23 AM	#68
Draconis Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: London UK Posts: 3,165	Just because some bits of temple have been found that are mentioned in the bible, that means the whole thing is true? To take another analogy: in the movie Superman II, superman takes an about-to-explode atomic bomb placed in the Eiffel Tower by terrorists and throws it up into space where it explodes harmlessly. 2000 years later archaeologists discover a copy of the movie and there is some argument whether this is fiction or not. Then they find the mangled remnants of the eiffel tower and a copy of the script. Do these things imply that Superman actually existed? Of course not. There is no real evidence of Superman, and his assumed existence can be explained in so many alternative ways. There is certainly no firm basis for believing he can really fly or that he could create the universe, so no need to base a religion on him and forcefully indoctrinate those who aren't convinced.

06-01-2009, 04:56 AM	#69
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	This topic is better suited to BC&H. A reminder to stick to the topic at hand, open a new thread for a new topic, and leave personal comments aside. Thanks!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.