RE: Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused
October 7, 2015 at 6:17 pm
(This post was last modified: October 7, 2015 at 7:22 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 6, 2015 at 11:51 pm)Delicate Wrote: A common claim about Christianity is "There are so many interpretations of the Bible! How can you know if any of it is true!"
What people who make this claim don't realize is that the differences over interpretation account for a minuscule fraction of what the Bible really says. So, while the Bible's stance on certain issues might not be wholly precise, the main claims are pretty clear.
No, the Bible is untrue because it makes claims about: dragons living in Babylon, the sun being created after plants, healing leprosy with the blood of birds, many 'holy men' leaving their graves and wondering around Jerusalem, 3 hours of darkness at noon (mysteriously no other culture reports this) and so many other ridiculous claims.
Quote:For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus. The Bible is pretty clear about most of his claims, and the basic facts of his life, etc.
The hell it is.
There are zero contemporaneous accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible.
Quote:The problem with people who make this claim is the overly broad and inaccurate generalizations.
The vast majority of discovered Biblical texts are for the most part identical to each other, and the minor discrepancies that do exist are over things like grammar and prepositions (like "on" versus "upon").
Identical versions of the majority of he Bible, does not lend any credibility to the BS claims contained in the Bible.
Quote:What knowledgeable atheists can rationally affirm is that only certain parts of the Bible might be ambiguous. The others are more or less clear.
Not a very good way for an omnipotent, omniscient deity to communicate his message, is it?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
