The Bible

[chatpilot]

History,reason,and yes common sense dictate that the bible is a creation of man and that there was no divine influence in it whatsoever.The bible reflects the beliefs of the period in which it was composed.It reflects the many erroneous pre-scientific principles and theories regarding man and his origins and the beginning of all things.All so called documents of holy writ claim the same thing that they were inspired or somehow divinely revealed to some man or prophet.That is nothing but mere self advertising.But those claims can easily be refuted by pointing out the many errors imbeded in the teachings themselves.

I dont need further proof that the christian god or any god for that matter exists.I have found sufficient evidence enough to satisfy my own curiosity.I have been on both sides of the fence and have tasted of both fruits that of fundamental belief and practice and that of pure atheism.The rest of you that keep trying to make sense where there is none can continue to grapple with the issue till your curiosity is statisfied,but by the looks of it everyone here is an agnostic in one sense or another.

That the concept of God is a creation of man is evident in the evolution of gods themselves.We started worshipping nature,soon those phonomenons of nature were given names and eventually personalities,in some cultures we worshipped animals and believed that the spirits of our dead loved ones resided in those animals (reincarnation),we worshipped man in the form of kings and pharoahs and emperors,we worshipped idols made of our own hands,then God became a man and we worshipped him.We gave him the traits and characteristics of a man,honestly when you read in the bible or koran honestly and you focus on the characteristics and qualities of God he is a man.He is angry,loves,hates,loathes,kills,dies,is content etc.I state emphatically that God is a creation of man and not the other way around.

[athoughtfulman]

I agree with you. I'm an agnostic atheist, as of only recently however.

I'm currently looking further into the issues surrounding the bible, and though I know a few things, I think I need more information. When you said:

But those claims can easily be refuted by pointing out the many errors imbeded in the teachings themselves.

What errors were you referring to? And what sources do you have? Further reading?

I'm with you on this, just interested to know more.

[chatpilot]

Okay one of the things that is evident in all so called books of holy writ,in this case the bible is that they are chock full of erroroneous information.They are wrong about biology,astronomy,and they tend to contradict themselves over and over again.And I am not referring to some subtle contradictions I am referring to blatant contradictions that are an outright insult to the intelligence of any man.I can recommend a couple of books that you can google.

1. 101 myths of the bible- Gary Greenberg
2. Gospel Fictions- Randel Helms
3. The worlds 16 Crucified Saviors:Christianity before Christ- Kersey Graves
4. The Christ conspiracy- Acharya S.
5. Some mistakes of Moses- Robert G. Ingersoll
6. Bible myths and their parallels in other religions- Thomas Doane

I could go on and on but these are some of the most prominent books that state my case clearly when it comes to the divine authorship and authenticity of the bible.

You might even be able to find some of these books online as ebooks but I actually own all of these and alot more on the subject matter.I have studied the historical Christ issue for years and it is impossible for me to explain all that I have discovered through my independent studies in a chat forum.Hence,the frustration I display at times when people keep asking me for proofs and I can never provide enough proof that is satisfactory enough to convince them of my assertions.I keep telling my fellow posters that the bible is nothing but a book of plagiarized myths.all it takes is some study of comparative religion and they would see alot of the bible tales told elsewhere with different characters and settings but essentially the same story over and over again.

[fr0d0]

What errors were you referring to? And what sources do you have? Further reading?

I'm with you on this, just interested to know more.

You've stated your position and now you're looking for reasons to back it up. Interesting.

[Kyuuketsuki]

What errors were you referring to? And what sources do you have? Further reading?

I'm with you on this, just interested to know more.

You've stated your position and now you're looking for reasons to back it up. Interesting.

That's a bit harsh considering he asked which errors were being referred to and that "he was interested to know more" both rather implying he already knew of some ... don't you think you should clarify BEFORE you jump to a conclusion?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

No, I think the hat fits, looking at thoughtful as a whole. Just pointing it out, since it's a common claim about theists that they first believe and then justify. Of course really the statement is false.

[leo-rcc]

Of course really the statement is false.

How so?

[fr0d0]

The generaisation of both theist and non theist doesn't hold true, IMO.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Interesting. What makes it better is that this is either something christians avoid mentioning or simply don't know about.

I suspect it's perhaps more a matter of being commonly known amongst series scholars,which precludes most Christians.Well,at least most of those who infest atheist forums.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

[athoughtfulman]

You've stated your position and now you're looking for reasons to back it up. Interesting.

No, on the contrary, I am open to the bible being the word of god. However, since once again it is a positive claim which requires evidence, my default position is that the bible is not the word of god, regardless of whether there is evidence or not. Every other book begins at that point, so the bible should to. If a case can be made for the bible being the word of god, then I would very much like to hear so I can have the most reasonable view.

Accordingly, if I take the stance of atheist, then I must accept the bible as a work of fiction, or at best a work of fiction with a few facts thrown in, but not in any circumstances the word of of god. Until evidence is shown, beyond verses in the bible itself, that it is inspired, then the most reasonable and open-minded stance to take is one where the bible is fiction.

I have reasons to back up my non-belief in god. Those reasons also pertain to the bible being the word of god. If god is not real, then the bible certainly isn't the word of god.

I'm merely looking into the specifics of the bible itself, and it's internal contradictions. The external contradictions everyone can already see and observe.