(July 5, 2014 at 1:52 am)Irrational Wrote:

(July 5, 2014 at 1:06 am)orangebox21 Wrote: The Biblical God cannot lie.
The Bible is the word(s) of God.
If the Biblical God cannot lie, then the words of the Biblical God are true.

I don't think any atheist here accepts the premises stated. The god in the Bible may be a liar, and the Bible is not accepted as God's word(s).

You should explain your premises better. And Why can't god lie? Why are the words true?

Getting back to the original point of this thread. . . .

We've spent some time discussing problems with The Bible. The problems are not new. Google makes them easily accessible now. But most of the questions apologists address, were not originally put by atheists, but by fellow Christians. There are many, many more to discuss, should anyone care to. I can think of at least four more with the birth story, and another dozen or so with the crucifixion and resurrection.

But I suspect that any such discussion will go just the way this one has. An atheist will point out a problem and a theist will find an apologist to say that if you look at in this highly convoluted way that requires scholarship, it's not a problem. Sometimes there are competing apologists who explain the problem in mutually exclusive ways.

The question I have to ask is would you ever turn yourself in such mental knots to defend the truth of any other book? And if the Bible is so very special and inspired by god, why is it in such need of defense?





Muslims tie themselves in similar knots for the Koran. Mormons seem to simply excommunicate persons who ask the thorny questions. But Christians don't excuse the contradictions in the Koran or the Book of Mormon. Why not?

Having been a former apologist myself, it is useless trying to convince a convicted apologist that there are contradictions in the Bible as they always figure out how to explain away the discrepancies.

I used to rely on the "explanation" that Luke's genealogy of Jesus is Mary's as well in order to explain away the difference in names between the two genealogies listed in the NT.

An absurd and unwarranted explanation, but yeah.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:32 pm)Irrational Wrote: Having been a former apologist myself, it is useless trying to convince a convicted apologist that there are contradictions in the Bible as they always figure out how to explain away the discrepancies.

You think so? I've never actually witnessed an apologist figure out a way to explain anything. Until said apologists come up with an argument that passes the litmus test, how can this claim be made?

-as a former apologist, care to put that idea to the test? I have a discrepency in mind. The discrepency between what we might call our observational experience of reality and what we might call a religious experience of reality. If you can explain why our experiences and observations cannot be trusted, with regards to religion - whilst our experience of religion -can- be trusted...simultaneously.........without invoking solipsim (thereby creating more questions while answering none) - then I'll concede.

I like to lay out a possible path for wrecking my conclusions when I ask for them to be wrecked. If you have some other way, I'm game for that as well.

Never said they'd be convincing. Except to themselves and their Christian audience.

Then I fail to see what way they have explained anything. Whether or not something explains any given thing is separate from whether or not anyone is convinced, isn't it? Darwin (and others) explained speciation, for example - even though he(they) didn't manage to convince everyone, or any particular person we might invoke.

(July 5, 2014 at 1:32 pm)Irrational Wrote: Having been a former apologist myself, it is useless trying to convince a convicted apologist that there are contradictions in the Bible as they always figure out how to explain away the discrepancies.

I used to rely on the "explanation" that Luke's genealogy of Jesus is Mary's as well in order to explain away the difference in names between the two genealogies listed in the NT.

An absurd and unwarranted explanation, but yeah.

Not necessarily. A number of seminary students become atheists by working on apologetics. Matt Dillahunty comes to mind, but there are a number of less prominent ones.

What changed your mind?

(July 5, 2014 at 2:07 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What changed your mind?

Several factors:

God never appearing to me.

Realizing that born again Christians around me weren't as holy as the Bible suggested they'd be.

Noticing my moral standards not meshing well with God's and always coming off as superior to his.

Reading scientific books for a change (especially on evolution).

Internal contradictions in the Bible was hardly a factor in my abandonment of the faith. But you may be right that other Christian apologists may be persuaded by having Bible contradictions clearly pointed out to them.

I've always had a question for people whom evolutionary biology deconverted. What would be so authoritative about god being a creator anyway? If he were (or weren't) that wouldn't really modify his edicts - as they applied to your rational process. Would it?

To suggest a scenario that makes this more plain. God just "happens upon" the earth, already populated - and hands down some "wisdom". Is that any more or less conclusive, in and of itself? Is any merit (potential merit, mind you) lost by this beings not having created anything?

Or- if you prefer. I didn't create genetically modified organisms - but my opinion on them might have some merit regardless.

(July 4, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Just because you can look on the net and see two sides to a question doesn't mean that the both have an equal claim to truth. Here's the particular discrepancy you tried to answer:

The Bible says Jesus was born during Census of 6-7 CE and reign of Herod. Sometime after Jesus' birth, Joseph takes Mary and Jesus to Egypt and stays there with them until Herod dies. Jesus is supposed to have died in Jerusalem in about 32 CE.

The problem is that there is no King Herod or even a combination of Herods that squares with the 6-7 CE birth date.

Again, I find two sides to the story. Check out these.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/200...px#Article

Why do you totally trust Josephus?

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/201...ensus.aspx

You tend to trust secular historical evidence as factual and biblical evidence as non-factual.