Atheist Boy

I am sick and tired of Christians telling me that "The bible was written by over 40 people, in a span of thousands of years, yet they all seem to agree! The bible MUST be the word of God!!!!!! :angel: " I usually tell them that there are contradictions in the bible, but usually they will argue with me about them and the debate/discussion/argument goes nowhere. I will usually also say the early Church changed some of the bible to make it harmonious, but they say that is a lie and not true most of the time.

So I am wondering can someone tell me a 4-5 sentence (longer if you want) rebuttal I can use against these dern Christians who use this argument?

Help is appreciated!

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

I've found it best to just smile and nod yes, totaly agree with them. It doesn't even hurt to go to their church. Just a word of warning *DANGER, WILL Robinson* though, if they offer you grape Flavor Aid®., RUN, ATHEIST BOY, RUN!

Roland

Point out that the writers of the OT seem to have no knowledge of eternal life, hell or even Satan as an "evil" force.

These are fundamental tenets of the NT and Christianity, yet they are virtually nonexistant for a thousand years worth of Bible history.

blt to go

I would respond as follows:

"Thanks. I have been having trouble with some of these concepts. Can you tell me (with sources) who these 40 people were? See, in my reading, everyone agrees a guy named Paul wrote some of the NT, but after that it gets very murky. Who, exactly are these 40 guys?

"And when exactly were theses books written? Over what 'thousands of years.' Again, your sources would be invaluable. In fact, if you could even narrow down within 25 years the books of the NT that would be helpful

(Always insist on sources. Not "my pastor said" but written sources. Recommend they go to Peter Kirby's site if they need help in finding sources)

"And that agreement thing" (this one in particular bugs me) "I understand that a variety of authors ALSO wrote things about Jesus and Yahweh that were not included. Why not? Did these books Disagree? What is so fantastic about 100 authors writing on a subject, and you only pick the 40 that agree with you and throw out the 60 that disagree with you? Why is the Book of Enoch quoted by Jude, but not in your Bible?

Magus55

They aren't non-existant, but true they aren't focused on as much. However there is a reason. It wasn't the purpose of the OT prophets to teach those concepts. The purpose of the OT is the historical background that leads up to Christ. Its then when Christ comes on the scene, that He introduces the world to Heaven and Hell.

Roland

Actually, the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" come from Zoroastrianism, not Judaism. A simple study of ancient history will reveal that.

By the time Jesus arrived, if he ever actually did, even the Jews had adopted this view of how the afterlife would be. Jesus just plugged into what was believed in his time. The early Hebrews had virtually no concept of those ideas.

You may accept your explanation as plausible, but the OP deals with the consitency of the Bible from beginning to end. The fact is that it ISN'T consistent. Like everything else in life, the writings in the Bible EVOLVED over time as the authors came under the influence of more and more of the religious belief systems in their world.

JCS

So everyone prior to this event is sent to either heaven or hell with no concept as to where or why they are there? What makes them so un-special and everyone after Jebus so special or vice versa?

Vinnie

I used the inverse of this argument in my formal debate here on IIDB:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/errancydebate1.html

I'll try to coin it succintly in a paragraph or two:

This is my own framaing of the nature of the Bible which lays down the basics of the issue:

The Bible is a collection of over 60 individual books spanning different literary genres (poetry, song, satire, law, prophecy). The works were written in different time periods, by a host of independent authors from diverse walks of life. The works were composed in different settings, different geographical areas, differerent languages and were inspired by different needs. This chimera also addresses a plethora of controversial subjects and issues (ranging from theological, to scientific to historical to moral).

Now my response would be:

An anthology of human works of such magnitude and length could never be inerrant unless some extraordinary conditions led to this special state. So many authors on so many issues are bound to commit errors (internal and external). All other books on the planet are not said to be inspired by God. This is the most natural position to take on literary products which are written and produced by humans (think Occam's Razor). Therefore, We must be presented with good reason as to why this book deserves special accord.

The Bible also has hundreds of surface anomalies. A surface anomaly is an apparent contradiction. Believers are eager to dismiss and explain away such apparent contradictions. Yet the Bible, on its surface, looks like all other works: errant and fallible. The inerrancy advocate has to explain why we should not believe that a work of this magnitude and scope, with so many authors and hundreds and hundreds of surface anomalies (apparent errors or alleged contradictions) is anything but errant and fallible.

Vinnie

CX

Umm...the books that made it into the Xian bible were picked by the proto-orthodox on what basis? That's right on the basis that they were a)old b)had the mark of apostolic authority (which, when not found, was invented) and c)agreed with proto-orthodox theology. Read that last line again. The books we have in the bible were chosen based on the fact that they agreed with a particular theology. So what this arguement is really saying is the books of the bible agree because they all agree and that's why they're in the bible. Praise the lord! It's ruddy miracle.

collyblom

Well, the most obvious is the OT "eye for an eye" vs the NT "turn the other cheek". What about "thou shalt not kill" (OT) vs the genocide of entire nations in order to establish the holy land (OT)? Erm, will look over my stuff and get back to you tomorrow.