(April 30, 2015 at 5:15 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I don't think anyone really knows what the bible says, hasn't it been translated and re translated, copied and re copied.

You can still refer to the original texts in their original languages. They are remarkably well-preserved in about 7000 extant copies. How much is available depends of course on which part of the bible; the gospel of John is better-attested than the book of Job. The real problem with "knowing what it says" is that ancients didn't think the way we do; their linguistic categories differ from modern ones, and they didn't see a need to "prove" everything "rationally" the way we demand today.

The modern Christian conception of God is very different from that of the 1st-century Christians; they're not exactly the same religion even.

Quote: Modern standards for evaluating documentary evidence simply did not exist in the Hellenistic world. And no, even were a miracle-worker walking about we shouldn't expect too much extant documentation about it. Few people read or wrote. Much of what was written has perished by now.

Right.  Always loved this for that reason.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

Quote:Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)

 
Richard Carrier

(April 30, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: You can still refer to the original texts in their original languages. They are remarkably well-preserved in about 7000 extant copies. How much is available depends of course on which part of the bible; the gospel of John is better-attested than the book of Job. The real problem with "knowing what it says" is that ancients didn't think the way we do; their linguistic categories differ from modern ones, and they didn't see a need to "prove" everything "rationally" the way we demand today.

The modern Christian conception of God is very different from that of the 1st-century Christians; they're not exactly the same religion even.  

By 'remarkably well preserved' do you mean the oldest fragment of the NT, Papyrus P52? A credit card fragment of John dated to about 70 years after the alleged events?



If that's what you mean by 'well preserved', maybe a definition of terms is in order.

(April 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(April 30, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: One can certainly disprove the Christian conception of god, logically. For instance, a perfect being has perfect mercy, obviously.

Alternatively, if one was so inclined, they could say that a perfect being has perfect vengeance. Really, a lot of people probably just make up whatever they want to believe is true.

Indeed.  That is yet another contradiction internal to their conception of god.

Quote:No one knows the mind of god... except when he agrees with everything they say. Which is always.

There is no mind to the Christian god. Those who draft him into their cause are simply so bereft of support that they will shanghai a nonentity to justify their own uninformed outlook.

(April 30, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Then why would such a god use such a poor mechanism to communicate such a message?

Texts, that contain metaphor, parable, myth, along with this 'truth' you say it contains, with no method to discern the difference. For every verse that one Christian claims is parable, other Christians will claim it is literal.

He does this in ancient languages, that he should know would die out and be open to broad interpretation, which only server to muddle his message further. Texts that were also open to edits, additions, copy errors, mistranslated, etc and not even written down for decades or longer. Not to mention internal and external contradictions. 

Couldn't a god come up with a much better method to transmit his message in order to assure it is communicated with 100% confidence that it is being interpreted correctly and is in the original form?

He used men to write the bible and it was written the way people would write in those days.  I guess that's the way he wanted to do it.  I think he wanted us to do some work, and also to rely on his guidance.

(April 30, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Lek Wrote: The verse is correct. It is inspired and profitable for those things. It's not inspired for scientific accuracy. It's inspired to be useful for the purpose God intended it for. The story of "the three little pigs" is not historically or scientifically correct, but it wasn't written for that reason. It was written to teach a lesson about life and that's what we read it for. God inspired the bible to lead us to Christ and that's what it's profitable for.

So, are you admitting that the Bible is not to be taken literally? Pardon me, but many theists would argue that it is a literal account of historical events. Also, if you suggest that it is simply inspired material, rather than the actual words of God, then that basically just confirms our arguments against theists. By saying that it was inspired, and not a compilation of literal facts, then doesn't that make the stories untrue...and therefore proving that your God doesn't exist because he doesn't lie? Last time I checked, fairy tales or stories are not true, and are actually lies.

(April 30, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Lek Wrote:

(April 30, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Then why would such a god use such a poor mechanism to communicate such a message?

Texts, that contain metaphor, parable, myth, along with this 'truth' you say it contains, with no method to discern the difference. For every verse that one Christian claims is parable, other Christians will claim it is literal.

He does this in ancient languages, that he should know would die out and be open to broad interpretation, which only server to muddle his message further. Texts that were also open to edits, additions, copy errors, mistranslated, etc and not even written down for decades or longer. Not to mention internal and external contradictions. 

Couldn't a god come up with a much better method to transmit his message in order to assure it is communicated with 100% confidence that it is being interpreted correctly and is in the original form?

He used men to write the bible and it was written the way people would write in those days.  I guess that's the way he wanted to do it.  I think he wanted us to do some work, and also to rely on his guidance.

So, this god, who allegedly wants to communicate the most important message to his creations. A message so important, that if we get it wrong, or don't believe it at all, threatens our immortal soul for eternity, and we only get one relatively short (80 or so years) time to get it, does not care enough to make sure the message is communicated in a unchanged, accurate form to his creation.

You believe in a pretty impotent god if he can't see the problem with that plan.

And if he can see the problem, that means he created the majority of us, knowing ahead of time that we are going to be punished in hell, or not be rewarded in heaven, for his own failed communication methods. And what is our crime? The belief in the wrong god, or disbelief in all gods, brought on by his poor communication methods.

(April 30, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(April 30, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: You can still refer to the original texts in their original languages. They are remarkably well-preserved in about 7000 extant copies. How much is available depends of course on which part of the bible; the gospel of John is better-attested than the book of Job. The real problem with "knowing what it says" is that ancients didn't think the way we do; their linguistic categories differ from modern ones, and they didn't see a need to "prove" everything "rationally" the way we demand today.

The modern Christian conception of God is very different from that of the 1st-century Christians; they're not exactly the same religion even.  

By 'remarkably well preserved' do you mean the oldest fragment of the NT, Papyrus P52? A credit card fragment of John dated to about 70 years after the alleged events?



If that's what you mean by 'well preserved', maybe a definition of terms is in order.


P-52 has been investigated by scholars.....dating pushed back.

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

Quote:In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:

Quote:There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).
Biblical scholars should realise that some of the dates proposed by some of their colleagues are not acceptable to Greek palaeographers and papyrologists.

Wikipedia entry

(April 30, 2015 at 12:07 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: We can look at things from the bible starting at the beginning: There are two ludicrous, contradicting biblical creation accounts. About 6,000-10,000 years ago, the bible claims Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet. That differs from scientific fact, that humans are at least 150,000 years old.. Need I go farther?

Also, just straightforward reasoning such as: Where are all the firsthand eyewitness written testimony of jesus's miracles he performed during his life? You would think if the only begotten son of god came to earth and performed miracles, someone would have written about it. Even if there were thousands of written statements, that shouldn't be good evidence to anyone anyway, but you would think at least that much would exist.

The bible disproves itself, that part is obvious. Would you go as far to say as the god of the bible can be disproved using the bible and/or logic? Feel free to quote more infallible passages.

Showing that the Bible is cockamamy doesn't necessarily show that doesn't show that "God" is as well. There are heaps of interpretations of what "God" is, these interpretations being made up by the many variants of believer who have, (or haven't), read it. The majority of the varying interpretations of what exactly "God" is supposed to entail, probably have some fundamental aspects in common. It is some of these aspects which can be disproved by logic.

One author, (co-author) who has made a good 'fist' of disproving "God" is Michael Martin, (Wikipedia entry). In that Wikipedia entry you will note some of the books he has had a hand in authoring. I have read . . .

The Impossibility of God, (Amazon).
The Improbability of God, (Amazon).
The Case Against Christianity, (Amazon).


For the purposes of this thread, "The Impossibility of God", does the best job. In this book, the authors take various features which may be attributed to "God", (and have been by Christian apologists), and using formal logic, show that the attributes are impossible in the world we know to exist, and so any god proposed to have the particular attribute, is in turn impossible. All the books I cite have a great deal of analysis in them, and are heavy reading, but they do a good job of what they claim. If you go to the Amazon sites I have psoted above, you can use the Look Inside function, (), to see what kinds of things are covered in the books.

(April 30, 2015 at 12:07 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: We can look at things from the bible starting at the beginning: There are two ludicrous, contradicting biblical creation accounts. About 6,000-10,000 years ago, the bible claims Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet. That differs from scientific fact, that humans are at least 150,000 years old.. Need I go farther?

Also, just straightforward reasoning such as: Where are all the firsthand eyewitness written testimony of jesus's miracles he performed during his life? You would think if the only begotten son of god came to earth and performed miracles, someone would have written about it. Even if there were thousands of written statements, that shouldn't be good evidence to anyone anyway, but you would think at least that much would exist.

The bible disproves itself, that part is obvious. Would you go as far to say as the god of the bible can be disproved using the bible and/or logic? Feel free to quote more infallible passages.

No, as various people have said you can't.  But you can certainly prove that the Bible describing said god is not inerrant.