Christians are so funny..

Could you actually just respond to what i said? Then I'll be happy to respond to any points you try to make, it's kind of how grown ups do it.

How many factual errors does the bible have to contain to prove it's not the inherent word of a flawless god? For me, It's just the one.

 

Ugh, I really should put you on ignore as many others already have...

You are stating that it has factual errors, but not quoting them. So how can I respond to you on them? If you want to discuss scripture I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

 

You yourself said "there are facts that support both sides". So i'm asking you, If there are facts that support the conclusion that the bible is a made up story how many of those "facts" do we need to prove that the bible is not the inherent word of a flawless god? Or are you going to pretend you didn't say it, now you have realised how untenable that admission has made your position?

 

I think you are reading into it much further than what was actually stated.

So, what about the Smithsonian's comment? Their research shows the bible as a credible source. You likely aren't going to listen to them, and I don't expect you to. I just expect you to realize that there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the table. At this point, as others have stated in other threads, both sides takes an element of faith.

I'm still waiting on those scriptures you keep referring too btw.

 

Quick, someone post the Noah's Ark dinosaur cartoon pic.

It owns!

 

The Smithsonian were referring to mentions in the bible of historical people and places, Not the religious claims. So i wouldn't expect the bible to be any less accurate than any other book written by any other person of the time. it's a book, written by people, 2000 years ago. It makes sense that it is going to mention some things that were actually around. Lots of fiction makes use of factual places and people.

It was actually you who said there are facts that support the conclusion that the bible is fabricated.

Here's how it is php. If you believe that the bible is the inherent word of an infallible god then we wouldn't expect to see any errors in it. And if we do see errors in it it can't possible be the inherent word of an infallible god, Regardless how how many irrelevant points it described accurately.

The point is only one error has to exist to invalidate it as perfect.

So i think it is important now that you answer the following questions just so we all understand fully your position.
1. Do you believe the bible is the inherent word of an infallible god?
2. Do you admit that there are factual errors in the bible?

 

what just happened?

 

1. I do.
2. No. Not in its purest form, no. But anyone can tamper with any book if they want. The King James version is riddled with errors, but it's exactly that King James' (and the Catholic church's) version. It's like how the military would pass through letters but censor them first to make sure people only heard what they wanted them to hear.

 

But you have based your religious convictions on the king james version haven't you (or at least one English translation or the other)?

And to be honest, You have absolutely no way of knowing how accurate the bible in its "purest form" is. You just assume it must be accurate because you assume it's the inherent word of an infallible god and now have to find an excuse as to why it appears to be a poorly written piece of tripe with so many continuity errors it reads like a 1960s B movie.

 

lol lol, reminds me of someone with a mental illness.

 

No, no I have not. The version I most often research is translated directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, each compared with as many and as old as possible, to obtain the 'purest' rendering. It is a literal and consistent translation, and if you care to know what that means I can enlighten you.

To be honest, you have no way of knowing how accurate particle theory is, as it is theory based on observation. Yet, we put 'faith', or solid belief in that theory, because the observations are strong enough to even be called evidence.

It is the same with the Bible. A reasoning person does not accept it on blind faith, but they test the observations. Fulfilled prophecy, historic accuracy and scientific references ahead of its time are some of those observations. Of course, one can always obstinately refuse to believe as well, that's each person's choice. But by doing so they have no solid reasons why the world is in the condition it is (we're evolving, aren't we?? So why aren't we improving?), and no solid hope for the future.

Regarding its quality of authorship, I find it comical that you refer to it as a "poorly written piece of tripe", when a large portion of modern literature and movies are based on it in some way. Have you read the Bible before? It's actually quite well written.

Thank you for your input, into which you have clearly put much thought and mental resources.

 

and i have a goldfish with 4 legs, 30,000 teeth and every evening at 6 PM it sings to me a random ABBA song.

it is true

 

So in actual fact your answer should have been "yes, yes i do. I do read an English translation".

Thinking something is probably true because of the observable evidence is not faith, it's actually the exact opposite of faith.

it's fairly clear the you believe the bible and there isn't anything that is going to change your mind, which is fine, But don't insult our intelligent by claiming your belief that a magic man in the sky wrote a book is comparable to the 21st centuries "belief" that atoms exist.

You could find equally uncompelling evidence for the validity of the quran. why not believe in that? Could it be because you were born in a culture which are more likely to be christian than muslims?

You only see evidence for the validity of the bible in the bible because you want to. You want to think you have a valid reason for believing in nonsense.

as a work of fiction it's complete crap. The continuity errors alone make it an unbearable read. I mean i understand it was written by many different authors decades after jesus was even supposed to be here, But how hard would it be for these people to get the factual stuff right? All they had to do was have a look to see what the last guy wrote.

 

hey, did i miss something...what`s funny??

 

So you only read English translations. yes or no?

What scientific accuracy ahead of it's time?

It probably does contain some historical accuracy, But why wouldn't it? just because it happens to mention some people and places which are historically accurate doesn't mean it's all accurate. You understand this, right?

That does, in no way what so ever, make it true. It just means you use delusion as an emotional crutch.

Are you talking about the fulfilling of the prophecies laid out in the OT? Ya know, The book which was read by those who wrote the NT? is it really beyond your imagination to think that the authors of the NT may have written it in a way as to fulfill prophecies laid down in bible V1.

And some are arrogant enough to think they do. Don't forget, You are the one with all the certainties. You are the one claiming this poorly written pile of shit is divinely inspired in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not.

if you have to find hope and meaning from an old book i pity you. But still, that is in no way evidence that it is true.

Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..."
Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."

Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

Need any more? I mean come on, What kind of shysters wrote this shit. They aren't even trying.

All of the above aren't your reasons for believing the bible is true, they are simply your excuses.

 

would you care to tell us, what you found out about islam then and what makes more sense about there being 3 gods than 1 god?

thanks

 

Ha, well, I've also read spanish (not that it counts ), and I have learned a little bit of necessary Hebrew & Greek to understand translated bits.

A lot. Referring to the earth as a sphere, when all thought it was flat. Dictating that the planet hangs on nothing, when others thought it rode the back of 4 elephants on a turtle. Hygiene laws when none existed. Many more, but I'm starting to get the feeling that your ears are deaf to this.

You're using a blanket statement that you feel applies to all Christians, and throwing it at me for no reason whatsoever. You have no idea who I am or what I'm like.

I'm not referring to prophecies being fulfilled in "V2". I'm talking about actual events taking place in history. But I can guarantee you don't really care.

I'm noticing a certain trend here. You have continually been insulting and demeaning, and I haven't once tried to put you down. Your blog is full of hatred, and your comments full of cynicism. So, I guess that's one more reason I 'believe' in the Bible, it has made me a much more peaceable person, who cares about people, and has no need to attempt to publicly humiliate them.

I don't pity you (your are a thinking person, I think that's great), but I pity the fact that you are hopeless and cynical.

Matthew is stating the lineage through Joseph. Luke is recounting the lineage through Mary, Heli was her father, but she is not listed, as it was the men that counted at the time. Jacob did indeed beget Joseph, whereas Heli 'acquired' him through the marriage of his daughter. Make sense?

Proper translation of Gen 22:1 reads "put Abraham to the test". No need to explain there, just shows the benefit of a good translation.

Very simple. 'Clean' animals by seven, 'unclean' by twos.

Many acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for 22 and 42 are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. The translation I have in front of me reads two and twenty.

Again, the insults. Why do I have a feeling that I wouldn't enjoy your company, even if we weren't discussing beliefs?

I think it's my turn to point out the flaws of evolution:

Darwin himself said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

We now know just how complex even the smallest cell is, and that they can function only as a complete entity. Therefore, it cannot be viable while being formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" induced by evolution.

This is referred to as 'irreducible complexity'.

Or how about the fact that the fossil record fails to support the theory of gradual transitions from one group to another? This continues to embarrass evolutionists.

Some people are reticent to believe in creation because they feel it is unscientific, or 'magic'. But in actuality it is completely harmonious with all known laws of physics. For example, the bible's depiction of a creator works very well with Einstein's theory of relativity. But then again, you most likely don't care to know about that, you just like to find reasons to hate religion - and yes, there are many!

I've studied much of Islam's teaching, and I respect a lot of it. I don't agree that there are three gods in one, only people who have misinterpreted the Bible do.

 

I'll stop picking holes in your primitive death cult, sorry, "religion". it's obvious that even the most rational case against it's validity is only going to be countered with ad hoc, contrived, manufactured excuses. You believe it because you want to believe it, That has become obvious.

I can't sit here and let you try to criticise evolution though. Especially considering how little you apparently understand it.

Irreducible complexity is a red herring manufactured by Michael Behe specifically to fit the criteria of Darwins self proposed discovery that would invalidate evolution.

Irreducible complexity has been time and time again refuted, But what do you care, You aren't interested in the truth, You are interested in simply propagating falsehoods, Like all creationists.

While it's true that in it's present form things like the cell wouldn't be able to function as it currently does, But by forming gradually over time every component and function evolves together.

Ken Miller explains this very well using the mouse trap, behes own example of "irreducible complexity". The point is, The cell is only irreducibly complex in it's present form for it's current function. The mousetrap only functions as a mouse trap with all 5 parts. But with 3 parts it functions as a tie clip. With one part it functions as a paper weight. The mistake you make is to look at the cell in it's present form and conclude that the cell we look at today is irreducibly complex.

Are you getting your information from 1950s creationist literature?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

hi

can you explain more? you believe there is only 1 god? then the only difference between us is that i believe muhammed (pbuh) is a messenger and prophet (just like jesus (pbuh) and all the others) of god and you don't. it is a very small barrier!

do you know about muhammed in the bible?