@ Blee

I've made two rather lengthy replies to you rather lengthy response to the OP.

I won't be replying to you again in this thread because of the shotgun nature of all replies to so many issues presented at once. So, I invite you to start a thread to discuss:

the plausibility of Noah's flood;

the plausibility of the Hebrew's flight from Egypt;

whether any particular prophecy in the OT is fulfilled in the NT times or since;

or any other relatively discrete issue you may wish to discuss.

But I have a couple notes to make first. Please take a look at previous threads on the issue first. If you want to know why Noah's flood was impossible, the reasons are here.

Second take a little time to look into the mater of burden of proof. Generally speaking the person seeking to assert a proposition such as: there is gravity; it is Monday; there is a god; or the whole earth was flooded about 4000 years ago has the burden of proof. It is not necessary for others to prove him false.

Finally, take a look at what is generally counted as historic evidence. By contemporary accounts, we don't mean modern accounts, we mean accounts written at the time the events in question happened. For example, the existence of Homer is debatable and there are no contemporary accounts of him, though two works are attributed to him. The existence Augustus is not debatable as there are many, many contemporary accounts of him. Socrates undoubtedly existed as there are contemporary accounts of him, but the only accounts of what he said philosophically are his pupil Plato's. Thus we are not really sure what he actually said. Plato and Aristotle wrote for themselves so we know what they said but not necessarily what others thought of them. There are no writings concerning the existence of Jesus or what he said until about a generation after his death and he wrote nothing down himself. The situation isn't as removed from contemporary corroboration as Homer, but there are considerably more writings from the time of Jesus than from the time of Homer. Therefore we'd consider contemary corroboration more likely.

Corroboration from outside is the best evidence of existence and deeds.

Ah, Jenny....

You are forgetting to account for religious "logic."

(October 16, 2014 at 1:54 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @ Blee

I've made two rather lengthy replies to you rather lengthy response to the OP.

I won't be replying to you again in this thread because of the shotgun nature of all replies to so many issues presented at once. So, I invite you to start a thread to discuss:

the plausibility of Noah's flood;

the plausibility of the Hebrew's flight from Egypt;

whether any particular prophecy in the OT is fulfilled in the NT times or since;

or any other relatively discrete issue you may wish to discuss.

But I have a couple notes to make first. Please take a look at previous threads on the issue first. If you want to know why Noah's flood was impossible, the reasons are here.

Second take a little time to look into the mater of burden of proof. Generally speaking the person seeking to assert a proposition such as: there is gravity; it is Monday; there is a god; or the whole earth was flooded about 4000 years ago has the burden of proof. It is not necessary for others to prove him false.

Finally, take a look at what is generally counted as historic evidence. By contemporary accounts, we don't mean modern accounts, we mean accounts written at the time the events in question happened. For example, the existence of Homer is debatable and there are no contemporary accounts of him, though two works are attributed to him. The existence Augustus is not debatable as there are many, many contemporary accounts of him. Socrates undoubtedly existed as there are contemporary accounts of him, but the only accounts of what he said philosophically are his pupil Plato's. Thus we are not really sure what he actually said. Plato and Aristotle wrote for themselves so we know what they said but not necessarily what others thought of them. There are no writings concerning the existence of Jesus or what he said until about a generation after his death and he wrote nothing down himself. The situation isn't as removed from contemporary corroboration as Homer, but there are considerably more writings from the time of Jesus than from the time of Homer. Therefore we'd consider contemary corroboration more likely.

Corroboration from outside is the best evidence of existence and deeds.

Thanks Jenny, I appreciate the responses and the attitude that comes with it. I'll definitely take time to look at some of the topics that you've brought up in your responses and such. Honestly, this first post was really kind of a knee jerk reaction to a lot of the unfortunate anti-debate answers that some of the Christians were offering (not to say that they are wrong, just wrong to this kind of crowd in my opinion).

(October 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Blee Wrote: 1) The Bible is not a single “Book” but a collection of books that were written over a large span of time, by multiple authors, with different literary style and all focused on a similar topic (GOD) and culminated with what is the New Testament.

Partly correct - the O.T. is a collection of 39 writings "originally" on 22 scrolls (as the Tanakh in the time of Jesus). The N.T. is a collection of 27 writings, although at least two of those are derivative works (i.e. the gospels of Matthew and Luke), and scholars dispute which Pauline writings are derivative. A good example is 2 Thessalonians - if scholars did not have 1 Thessalonians they probably wouldn't dispute 2 Thessalonians, however the fact that they have both makes it appear as if 2 Thessalonians is a derivative work, just like the Synoptic problem.

Now here's a question for you: when do you think that the Pentateuch was written, and why?

Quote:o The fact that the contents in the Bible span thousands of years suggests that some of the stories in the Bible may be during time periods that have been historically and archaeologically verified by outside sources.

Incorrect. The Bible does NOT span thousands of years, besides Genesis which most scholars - even Evangelical scholars - acknowledge isn't literal. If the Bible starts from the time of the Exodus then it spans a few hundred years.

So best-case scenario - assuming that Exodus had begun to being written down at the time of the exodus in the 13th century BC, then the time-span for the writing of the O.T. is about 800 years. That's the best-case scenario from a "evangelical"/"fundamentalist" or "apologetics" POV. The N.T. was written over a period of perhaps 50-100 years. So the entire Bible from start to end was written over the course of up to 900 years, with a 500-600 year gap in writing. Agreed?

The reality though is quite different - if Hebrew was a written language in 1200 BC there would be evidence - something containing a Hebrew character like pottery would be found. As it is, no Hebrew writing has ever been found that dates to earlier than about 600 BC. There are well over a million pieces of Egyptian writings discovered that date around those centuries alone (i.e. 15th-5th cent BC); there are so many that most have never actually been published (but if you want to become an ancient Egyptian archaeologist you can go and publish as many of them as you want). The idea that 2-3 million ancient Israelites left Egypt in the 13th century BC, when the total population of Egypt at the time was about 3.5 million, would mean that artefacts left behind with Hebrew letters on them would have been found. Especially since they've concentrated themselves into a much denser area than Egypt was spread over.

Sadly the arguments that you are using are simply not very good ones, because you're refusing to acknowledge tangible scientific evidence. I'm perfectly willing to accept the biblical books as evidence, but not as the "only evidence".

Quote:Some of the Biblical accounts that have archaeological findings supporting their historical relevance include the Hittities, Solomon’s wealth, Sargon, and King Belshazzar.

Again, grossly incorrect. Since the 19th century archaeologists have been searching for evidence specifically for the kingdoms of David and Solomon. One of the ways they determine a settlement or city's size is by finding the graves. The graves are always placed on the outside of the city. David's kingdom was really a small mountain village perhaps up to about 4 hectares in size (i.e. 200m2). As for Solomon, there were structures once thought by apologists to be built by Solomon, but modern dating techniques (i.e. radiocarbon dating of organic material) has shown that Solomon couldn't have built those structures. The archaeological record shows Solomon to have also ruled over only a small village.

Quote:This suggests that the Biblical accounts of these hold a measure of truth.

Why?

Quote:I’ll go further and say the Biblical accounts are 100% true, since there is not enough evidence or information to conclude that only bits and pieces of the Biblical account are true. I hold this stance until evidence is presented that says otherwise.

Evidence like this?

Quote:o For example, if I write about the history of Jesus in 2014… it is less authentic than someone who wrote it in 90AD.

Shouldn't that also be true for Genesis which by most "conservative" minded scholars was not written until around 1000 BC?

Quote:o To put things into perspective, the NT has over 25,000 manuscripts.

Incorrect.

There are around 5,800 ancient Greek manuscripts. The average length is 450 pages (i.e. over 2.6 million Greek pages exist and have been published). There is an estimated 10,000 in Latin. That would bring the total N.T. manuscripts to around 16,000 or more. Then there are an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 in other languages. That brings to total number of ancient hand-written N.T. manuscripts to between 21-26,000. You've simply plucked the 25,000 number off the high-end of that estimate, and then gone on to claim that there are "more than" that number when in fact there many only be 21,000 ancient manuscripts. Or you're simply copying it from someone else and have no idea how that number was generated. Be more careful with the numbers you quote.

If you had simply said "there are probably more than 21,000 ancient N.T. manuscripts" I would have agreed.

In addition to that there are over a million quotes of the N.T. in other ancient manuscripts mostly attributed to Church leaders, priests, bishops, etc.

It's my opinion though that the only number that really matters is the 5,800 one, because it is the "primary" Greek-language source. Translators (aside from Catholic translators) don't use the Latin and other translations to translate from. And in fact they don't use most of the 5,800 Greek manuscripts either - they use a critical text called "Novum Testamentum Graece" (or in some cases "Textus Receptus") which is based on a selection of those sources, I'm not sure off-hand how many, but certainly not on the less accurate ones (and in fact TR is based on only a handful of manuscripts).

I'll even reference the numbers I just quoted:

Quote:The OT goes much further back into history. Prior to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest version was a 900AD copy.

Incorrect, again you have failed to do you research. The Aleppo Codex does date to c. 920 AD, but it is incomplete (about 40% is missing or no longer exists), and furthermore the Jews don't even allow it to be read and used for biblical publication and translation. Thus the only source that can be used is the Leningrad Codex, which is complete. It dates to c. 1008 AD.

The DSS, while they do contain almost every book of the Tanakh, are not used as a primary source for translation and publication of the OT. Partly because they represent a different textual tradition. They confirm about 95% of the Tanakh as contained in the Leningrad Codex.

Quote:Anyway, lots of data available for this.

So where are your links and references then?

(October 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Blee Wrote:

(October 16, 2014 at 1:54 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @ Blee

---

I've made two rather lengthy replies to you rather lengthy response to the OP.

I won't be replying to you again in this thread because of the shotgun nature of all replies to so many issues presented at once. So, I invite you to start a thread to discuss:

the plausibility of Noah's flood;

the plausibility of the Hebrew's flight from Egypt;

whether any particular prophecy in the OT is fulfilled in the NT times or since;

or any other relatively discrete issue you may wish to discuss.

But I have a couple notes to make first. Please take a look at previous threads on the issue first. If you want to know why Noah's flood was impossible, the reasons are here.

Second take a little time to look into the mater of burden of proof. Generally speaking the person seeking to assert a proposition such as: there is gravity; it is Monday; there is a god; or the whole earth was flooded about 4000 years ago has the burden of proof. It is not necessary for others to prove him false.

Finally, take a look at what is generally counted as historic evidence. By contemporary accounts, we don't mean modern accounts, we mean accounts written at the time the events in question happened. For example, the existence of Homer is debatable and there are no contemporary accounts of him, though two works are attributed to him. The existence Augustus is not debatable as there are many, many contemporary accounts of him. Socrates undoubtedly existed as there are contemporary accounts of him, but the only accounts of what he said philosophically are his pupil Plato's. Thus we are not really sure what he actually said. Plato and Aristotle wrote for themselves so we know what they said but not necessarily what others thought of them. There are no writings concerning the existence of Jesus or what he said until about a generation after his death and he wrote nothing down himself. The situation isn't as removed from contemporary corroboration as Homer, but there are considerably more writings from the time of Jesus than from the time of Homer. Therefore we'd consider contemary corroboration more likely.

Corroboration from outside is the best evidence of existence and deeds.

---

Thanks Jenny, I appreciate the responses and the attitude that comes with it. I'll definitely take time to look at some of the topics that you've brought up in your responses and such. Honestly, this first post was really kind of a knee jerk reaction to a lot of the unfortunate anti-debate answers that some of the Christians were offering (not to say that they are wrong, just wrong to this kind of crowd in my opinion).

Yes indeed, this is a crowd that requires evidence rationally applied. Whenever you're ready to dive into a topic, please do. I look forward to it.

You've come a long way, Danny.

(October 9, 2014 at 9:31 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I wonder why Christians trust the Bible as a valid source of information for what happened. I'm not talking about the obviousness of all the unsubstantiated accounts of magic happening. I don't mean how their apologetics show YHWH is untrustworthy (I already touched on that). I just mean the overall account of things:

• Stories being told by authors who had no witnesses to the events.
  
• Books being written by people who had "divine revelations".
  
• Satan as "the Deceiver".
  

The first two bullet points show how the story is written by people with no accountability for their fantastic claims. Hell, people have analyzed the texts and know for sure that Paul didn't write all the epistles. The exact number of them is in dispute, but we know that people claiming to be someone who had a divine revelation from God got their books inserted into biblical canon, and that doesn't even speak to whether or not Paul actually did have any revelation. How do people know this? How would they even be able to check to see if he's telling the truth? They are warned about false teacher and prophets and to not listen to them, but they have no way to be able to check the veracity of the author's claims. They could be false teacher poisoning the well against dissenting points of view.

And on the topic of poisoning the well, what about poor Satan? We are told flat-out that he is wrong, he is a liar, and to never trust him. This is a one-sided story where we are told to never talk to the other side to try and figure out what really happened. In any other situation, this would be highly suspicious and it would look like someone is trying to hide something. Put it in the context of religion, and suddenly everything is fine and it gets a free pass.

Shouldn't this alone be enough to put doubt into any adherent? Ignoring the absurdity of all the claims, the total lack of evidence, and the demonstrable wrongness of parts of the Bible, the book itself looks sketchy as hell.

Well I'm not reading all 19 pages of replies but I will try to answer your question.

We do not think the bible is entirely true. (Atleast us non- protestants) Far from it. We believe that it just narrates through mythology and real events how man came to understand god and how mankinds behaviour evolved. First the behavior was perfect, then it degraded to a level where telling humans the importance of loving your neighbour just wasn't understandable. (This was before Romans gathered to see lions eat prisoners)
In a world where Child sacrifice and the likes were prevalent, man had no sense to treat everyone with respect. The world was barbaric, and to keep a country (Israel) pure and alive till the messiah arrived, it was necessary for rules to be set up so that they wouldn't do anything wrong.

When the world's morality improved and people were able to understand Jesus' teachings of love and compassion (still note that this was while Romans gathered to see lions eat prisoners) god sent Jesus to explain it all to them.

Apart from that there are numerous prophecies in the bible which foretell the coming of Jesus. The fall of Tyre is one. The exile of the 10 tribes is another (It happened over 200 years) Read Isaiah and Eziekel
We don't believe in the Adam and eve thing and the talking donkey and all. They are just stories to explain the situation of man at that particular point of time.

It's sad how such rigid beliefs tend to alienate people from Christianity

Quote: The fall of Tyre is one

Tyre still exists.

Quote: 19 For thus saith the Lord God; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; 20 when I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord God.

Ez. 26

Um, bullshit. There it is! 4th largest city in Lebanon.

(October 18, 2014 at 12:31 am)Vivalarevolution Wrote: Well I'm not reading all 19 pages of replies but I will try to answer your question.

We do not think the bible is entirely true. (Atleast us non- protestants) Far from it. We believe that it just narrates through mythology and real events how man came to understand god and how mankinds behaviour evolved. First the behavior was perfect, then it degraded to a level where telling humans the importance of loving your neighbour just wasn't understandable. (This was before Romans gathered to see lions eat prisoners)
In a world where Child sacrifice and the likes were prevalent, man had no sense to treat everyone with respect. The world was barbaric, and to keep a country (Israel) pure and alive till the messiah arrived, it was necessary for rules to be set up so that they wouldn't do anything wrong.

When the world's morality improved and people were able to understand Jesus' teachings of love and compassion (still note that this was while Romans gathered to see lions eat prisoners) god sent Jesus to explain it all to them.

Apart from that there are numerous prophecies in the bible which foretell the coming of Jesus. The fall of Tyre is one. The exile of the 10 tribes is another (It happened over 200 years) Read Isaiah and Eziekel
We don't believe in the Adam and eve thing and the talking donkey and all. They are just stories to explain the situation of man at that particular point of time.

It's sad how such rigid beliefs tend to alienate people from Christianity

If you really believe that the "Orthodox church teachings" haven't changed since day dot then I'll sell you the holy grail my friend.

Leaving aside the contradictions in your post, simply explain Joshua 10 to me, followed by how the Exodus happened at a time when Egypt can be shown to be in complete control of the Canaan land?

Why does the Orthodox church read from the LXX instead of the Masoretic Text? Why? Because your beliefs about the MT were based on a primitive understanding that has since been disproved.

Especially since you don't even use the whole LXX as the basis of your scripture, nor the LXX book of Daniel (which FYI only exists now in one or maybe two very late manuscripts). You read a text that is essentially copied from the fifth column of the Hexapla because you think it dates back to before Christ when it can be shown that it doesn't. It doesn't even exist in whole as a single ancient manuscript. Every single ancient manuscript had at least some books swapped out - at least the Leningrad Codex is complete.

---

(October 18, 2014 at 2:51 am)Minimalist Wrote: Um, bullshit. There it is! 4th largest city in Lebanon.

Kind of like how they were given Canaan for an eternity:

Genesis 17:8
"And I will give to thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land in which thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

Theist trust the bible for the simple reason that they are dumb and have ZERO critical thinking and reading comprehension skills.