The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Tonus]

Poorly written by modern standards, sure. Even if it was considered a masterpiece when first compiled, the main issue here is the theist's claim that it is evidence of anything other than the fact that people liked to write stories about a god they thought existed.

In terms of quality as a book of tales, it has its good and bad moments, but the inclusion of so many pedantic lists (genealogies, laws, etc) makes it drag in places. Where I think it really suffers is in the ambiguity, the way it can be interpreted so many different ways, particularly if you strip away (or add) some or all of the context. This is a problem because the book is considered a work from god. Person A doesn't just disagree with Person B on the specifics: he may be convinced that Person B is hell-bound for having the wrong interpretation.

[Minimalist]

genealogies

I've long thought ( no evidence...just a gut feeling based on human nature) that the reason for those silly genealogies was to somehow write into the narrative a glorious history for the people who commissioned the various re-writes from the scribes. In much the same way other ancient figures....Caesar, Alexander....found ways to link themselves to the gods.

One must always remember that this shit did not start out as any sort of collection but as separate books which were later joined together by men with an agenda.

[orangebox21]

Biblical Christians believe the Bible to be truth. So when asked what the truth is, as you have stated, we use scripture. The other reason (speaking for myself) I do this is because when I quote the Bible I am speaking upon the authority of His Word. If I were to give you my own thoughts and perspectives I come upon my own authority. If you are looking for something outside of scripture to prove the inherrancy of scripture (or a proof that God exists) one still has to look to scripture to discuss it. That being said from a non-biblical theist perspective (and not using scripture) I would say that creation (namely the earth and all the plants, animals, people, etc) is my evidence for the existence of God. I realize atheists reject creation because it speaks to a creator and they don't believe in one. So the natural question then arises: Where did we come from? If we were created then we believe in a creator. If we don't believe in a creator we look for another explanation. I will only discuss evolution here because it seems to be the most widely held argument in opposition to creation and thus God. I will define evolution as chance through time. Evolution seeks to prove that through time (millions of years), and chance (things just happened to come together in just the right manner) life was created and then evolved and humans are the most recent of that evolution.

My evidence through creation is that God has given the creation as an evidence/witness for Himself. As an analogy: you look through a telescope at the moon. You see the American Flag on a pole stuck into the moon's surface. What is the more likely scenario; that the flag got there by chance through time, that it just happed (evolution) or that someone put it there (creation). Similarly the empire state building. I didn't physically observe anyone design and build this building. Yet I believe it was created and built by an intelligent designer (creation), and the building itself bears witness to it's designer/creator. (much like the mayan ruins and Egyptian Pyramids bear witness to previous civilizations). I do not believe that the building got there by chance through time (evolution).

So scripture aside, there are and have been people who have held to the view of creation that reject the Biblical account of it. And as such they believe in a creator but not the one spoken of in the Bible.

[Tonus]

I've long thought ( no evidence...just a gut feeling based on human nature) that the reason for those silly genealogies was to somehow write into the narrative a glorious history for the people who commissioned the various re-writes from the scribes. In much the same way other ancient figures....Caesar, Alexander....found ways to link themselves to the gods.

That sounds plausible, given human nature. It'd be pretty cool to learn that some of the greatest characters in those books paid for the privilege of getting credit for parting seas and making the sun stand still in the sky.

A: So, let me get this right, you want to have 30 wives and 70 concubines?
B: Sounds kinda low, doesn't it? Fuck it, here's another gold piece. Let's make it 300 and 700, shall we?
A: Whatever you say, "Solomon."

[Minimalist]

I will define evolution as chance through time.

Okay - so now we know that you don't know what evolution means.

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


--EDIT: Bolded the words "natural selection" for xtians who are incapable of seeing them!

[EgoRaptor]

I've lately seen a rash of theists here, old and new alike, that when confronted with the question, "Do you have evidence for the existence of your god?" that proceed to quote biblical scripture as the source of their conviction. This is not a strange thing, as these particular theists called Christians more often than not perceive this text to be full of accounts that were directly-inspired by divine means, or tell the tale of historical events relating to their particular religious history. Taking such a stance is, in actuality, a non-answer to the question posed above.

The Bible is a book of divine claims, telling of a god (or gods, in some interpretations) that has yet to be proven to exist. Since evidence must be demonstrated to be true before it can be taken as fact, the Bible falls short in satisfying any demands of proof, as it can in no way be proven that the men who wrote were actually under any divine influence.

I know my request to theists to stop appealing to the Bible as evidence of a god (or gods) will fall on many deaf ears, but I feel this phenomenon has gotten a little out of hand as of late and really needed to be addressed. Thank you for taking a moment to read this, especially if you are a Christian member of this forum.

If the bible 'claims' that if you do A, B, C and you will find 'X' the finding of 'X' (for over 2000 years) is then proof the bible is accurate.

If one were to closly follow the A, B, C, instructions and find nothing then the bible would have been discarded long before now.

Okay, lets go with that. The Bible claims a lot of shit will happen; I found an entire RationalWiki article showing all the fail in the Bible.

I also predict that you will reject all of this. Hence, should my prophecy come true that will (by your logic) prove me to be a reliable source of information that must be taken literally.

[Doubting Thomas]

Biblical Christians believe the Bible to be truth. So when asked what the truth is, as you have stated, we use scripture.

But again, what's written in the bible is just the claim, not the proof. It's just a book. I could say that I believe that everything in the book The Grapes of Wrath literally happened, and when you ask me for evidence that Tom Joad existed I point to the book as evidence.

[The Valkyrie]

Standard circular arguments, "The bible is proof that god exists because the bible says so."

Many, unfortunately, seem incapable of original thought.

Their arguments for the existence of their god generally comes down to, quoting the bible, appeals to authority, personal experiences, or "look at the tree".

[Minimalist]

Biblical Christians believe the Bible to be truth. So when asked what the truth is, as you have stated, we use scripture.

But again, what's written in the bible is just the claim, not the proof. It's just a book. I could say that I believe that everything in the book The Grapes of Wrath literally happened, and when you ask me for evidence that Tom Joad existed I point to the book as evidence.

That's where the special pleading comes in. It isn't just a book, it's THE book! Why? Because the assholes say so.

[orangebox21]

Biblical Christians believe the Bible to be truth. So when asked what the truth is, as you have stated, we use scripture.

But again, what's written in the bible is just the claim, not the proof. It's just a book. I could say that I believe that everything in the book The Grapes of Wrath literally happened, and when you ask me for evidence that Tom Joad existed I point to the book as evidence.

Understood. That is why I gave creation as evidence.