Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
My videos on self-contradictions, absurd statements and horrifying immorality in the Bible, from the sky dome to the pillars of the flat earth, from the ridiculously long lives of the early prophets to the idea that demonic possession cause diseases, from the rape and genocide commanded by the Bible to its rules regarding slavery, is often met with the predictable response from Christians:
"When the Bible says... it really means..."
That's the basic theme, anyway. The variations on it invariably involve unbelievably obtuse interpretations contrived to work backward toward a desired a prior conclusion with a heavy dose of confirmation bias. When necessary, the defender of the faith can conjure an unlimited stream of ad hoc hypothesizes, in some extreme cases writings elaborate "fan fics" to square the circle.
At times, assertions about the "real meaning" are made up completely. One classic example is the reference in Matthew to Isaiah chapter 7, a supposed prophecy of the future messiah being born of a virgin. Setting aside the "bethula/almah" issue, Isaiah 7:14 relates to the time of the author, not to a messiah born centuries later. Without batting an eye, the apologist will simply assert that Isaiah 7:14 is a "double prophecy". There is no reason to think a double prophecy was ever intended by the author nor is there any reference to a messiah born centuries later. This assertion about the author's intent is simply made up.
Typically, debates on a straightforward skeptical reading of Biblical passages vs. the Olympic-level mental gymnastic readings performed by the apologist end with the skeptic invoking Occam's Razor and the apologist ironically accusing the skeptic of reading the passages with an agenda.
Tiring of this merry-go-round, I've recently taken a new approach.
Why didn't the early Christians read the Bible the same way?
John Calvin, founder of one major sect of Protestantism, wrote in his exegesis on The Book of Genesis, that the sun runs its circuit around the earth, which is placed in the center of the universe.
At roughly the same time, Cardinal Bellermine, one of the chief prosecutors of Galileo (who's name a local community college in my town has taken), worried in a letter written to a colleague that if it WERE true that the earth really did revolve around the sun, that "we should have great difficulty in explaining all the passages in scripture that teach to the contrary."
But modern Christians read the Bible and accuse me of being dishonesty when I quote these very same passages that Cardinal Bellermine worried so much about. Of course these passages are only metaphors! Of course the Bible really teaches that the earth revolves around the sun!
Why was it not so obvious to Christians of the time of Galileo and before? Are modern Christians so much more versed in scripture than the greatest Christian scholars who lived centuries earlier?
And the presuppositionalists who insist that knowledge is impossible without their god, why were the men of faith so ignorant back then?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
July 15, 2014 at 3:28 pm (This post was last modified: July 15, 2014 at 3:30 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
The presuppositionalist would tell you that their argument concerns the possibility of knowledge, not it's possession by any specific man, christian or otherwise. Ditto with the bible. That only by accepting the premise(s) laid forth in the bible can knowledge be possible, not that their arguments demonstrate the accuracy of the contents the bible.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
In order to continue saying something is infallible, you have to take things that are blatantly wrong if taken at face value, and make it so it's believable. Usually, at least. Literalists are out there, and honestly I'm not sure how they could get past the first chapter of Genesis while thinking everything is literally true.
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
My videos on self-contradictions, absurd statements and horrifying immorality in the Bible, from the sky dome to the pillars of the flat earth, from the ridiculously long lives of the early prophets to the idea that demonic possession cause diseases, from the rape and genocide commanded by the Bible to its rules regarding slavery, is often met with the predictable response from Christians:
"When the Bible says... it really means..."
That's the basic theme, anyway. The variations on it invariably involve unbelievably obtuse interpretations contrived to work backward toward a desired a prior conclusion with a heavy dose of confirmation bias. When necessary, the defender of the faith can conjure an unlimited stream of ad hoc hypothesizes, in some extreme cases writings elaborate "fan fics" to square the circle.
At times, assertions about the "real meaning" are made up completely. One classic example is the reference in Matthew to Isaiah chapter 7, a supposed prophecy of the future messiah being born of a virgin. Setting aside the "bethula/almah" issue, Isaiah 7:14 relates to the time of the author, not to a messiah born centuries later. Without batting an eye, the apologist will simply assert that Isaiah 7:14 is a "double prophecy". There is no reason to think a double prophecy was ever intended by the author nor is there any reference to a messiah born centuries later. This assertion about the author's intent is simply made up.
Typically, debates on a straightforward skeptical reading of Biblical passages vs. the Olympic-level mental gymnastic readings performed by the apologist end with the skeptic invoking Occam's Razor and the apologist ironically accusing the skeptic of reading the passages with an agenda.
Tiring of this merry-go-round, I've recently taken a new approach.
Why didn't the early Christians read the Bible the same way?
John Calvin, founder of one major sect of Protestantism, wrote in his exegesis on The Book of Genesis, that the sun runs its circuit around the earth, which is placed in the center of the universe.
At roughly the same time, Cardinal Bellermine, one of the chief prosecutors of Galileo (who's name a local community college in my town has taken), worried in a letter written to a colleague that if it WERE true that the earth really did revolve around the sun, that "we should have great difficulty in explaining all the passages in scripture that teach to the contrary."
But modern Christians read the Bible and accuse me of being dishonesty when I quote these very same passages that Cardinal Bellermine worried so much about. Of course these passages are only metaphors! Of course the Bible really teaches that the earth revolves around the sun!
Why was it not so obvious to Christians of the time of Galileo and before? Are modern Christians so much more versed in scripture than the greatest Christian scholars who lived centuries earlier?
And the presuppositionalists who insist that knowledge is impossible without their god, why were the men of faith so ignorant back then?
The answer to that question is that the early Christians didn't have the Bible. All they had were bits and pieces of assorted manuscripts, which most of them never saw nor could they have read them if they had seen them. Heck, almost everyone in America has a Bible or easy access to one and hardly anyone ever reads more than one or two verses from it. They simply make up stuff that they think is in it. You can see that from the comments people post of forums such as this one.
The Bible as such didn't exist until a committee of Englishmen wrote it. And they included most of the discrepancies to show that it was all BS.
Xtians are largely full of shit, D-P. Centuries ago when confronted with an unpleasant reality they would simply tie the offender to a stake and set him on fire. They call that "the good old days."
Now, they are forced into the unhappy position of bullshitting their way out of problems in the manner you described.
July 16, 2014 at 6:09 am (This post was last modified: July 16, 2014 at 6:10 am by Tonus.)
The JWs use Proverbs 4:18 ("But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day") to support something that they call "progressive revelation." The idea is that god reveals the truth of the Bible gradually and allows humanity to remain in the dark about certain things until the right time. It is a very convenient device which allows them to admit that they were wrong about something while claiming that the fact that they were wrong is proof that they are god's chosen people! It allows for continual re-interpretation of scripture without concern over why people with direct support from god and the holy spirit would have gotten it wrong in the first place. And if you happen to wonder why god deemed it necessary to hide the truth from people who lived hundreds of years ago, there's always the "mysterious ways" excuse.
If your worldview depends on the existence of a particular god then no contortion is too painful (and no rationalization too nonsensical) if it keeps your beliefs intact. Why didn't those men interpret the Bible correctly? Because it wasn't the right time for it. Why would a god for whom it is "impossible to lie" hide the true interpretation of his "good news" for thousands of years and allow his followers to fragment into factions that at times massacred one another recklessly? Because, um... *runs away*
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
To many people, telling half truths is the same as lying. It's like when two kids get into a fight, and one hits harder than the other, the one that runs away will cry that the other hit him without mentioning that they were hitting each other. While the child isn't really lying to the parent, he's omitting the parts that would incriminate him.
Letting your people run with faulty information is wrong. Then again, torturing your faithful followers so that they can prove their loyalty is wrong too. Even if he showered Job with gifts, the trust is still most likely gone.
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
July 16, 2014 at 9:44 am (This post was last modified: July 16, 2014 at 9:45 am by DeistPaladin.)
(July 16, 2014 at 6:09 am)Tonus Wrote: If your worldview depends on the existence of a particular god then no contortion is too painful (and no rationalization too nonsensical) if it keeps your beliefs intact.
This is possibly one of the most tragic aspects of our apparent nature, that so many people would rather die (literally I suspect) than ever utter those three dreaded words "I was wrong". One of the things that gives me pause in my deistic beliefs is that reason is not so ascendant in our thinking.
It's hard for me to understand, since nobody expects to ever know everything and therefore there must always be new information to be discovered and new information can always carry the potential to demand a rethink on previously held convictions. Why do we dread saying those three words?
Having said them on many occasions, It's not hard to do.
Here's an excellent video on the subject from one YouTuber who has the clarity and patience I can only envy:
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
(July 15, 2014 at 2:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: At times, assertions about the "real meaning" are made up completely. One classic example is the reference in Matthew to Isaiah chapter 7, a supposed prophecy of the future messiah being born of a virgin. Setting aside the "bethula/almah" issue, Isaiah 7:14 relates to the time of the author, not to a messiah born centuries later. Without batting an eye, the apologist will simply assert that Isaiah 7:14 is a "double prophecy". There is no reason to think a double prophecy was ever intended by the author nor is there any reference to a messiah born centuries later. This assertion about the author's intent is simply made up.
Typically, debates on a straightforward skeptical reading of Biblical passages vs. the Olympic-level mental gymnastic readings performed by the apologist end with the skeptic invoking Occam's Razor and the apologist ironically accusing the skeptic of reading the passages with an agenda.
Tiring of this merry-go-round, I've recently taken a new approach.
Why didn't the early Christians read the Bible the same way?
Er, Matthew was an early Christian - much earlier than the examples you give - and he apparently did read the Bible that way.
![[Image: insp_logic.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=furiousfanboys.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Finsp_logic.png)
