Proof That the Bible Isn't the Word of God

[Zone]

I was born in the west. Microsoft holds authority (2nd to atheism of course)

Ah now you see what you're doing there is confussing atheism with a religion. All it's really doing is saying "Hmmm that doesn't seem right to me." while not offering any alternative religious belief system or structure of any kind. Many atheists tend to assume that the universe just kind of formed the way it did due to some natural process without any intention and consciousness is an ephimenon of the brain. So no souls, reincarnation afterlives or anything like that but you don't really have to commit yourself to that, it just isn't something to concern yourself with either way. If you really want to get into hard naturalist metaphysics then I recommend some classic Epicurean philosophy.

(I would buy this but it's fricken £39.90 on Amazon)

It's optional though. Philosophical naturalism was originally "invented" to help people overcome their fear of death would you believe, without an afterlife you won't have anything to worry about beyond your life. But there could be something like a God or a life after death for all I know but I doubt it's anything we as humans at this point of history know about. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

[fr0d0]

I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

You funny

---

Ah now you see what you're doing there is confussing atheism with a religion.

Just like you would be confussing (nice word, I stole it ) Christianity with theism huh?

I don't know who summonsed you but welcome to the asylum

[Zone]

You funny

I don't see any reason why any human made religion is "true" if there's no evidence for any of them and they all make different mutually exclusive claims. So it seems easier to me to just say they're all wrong. There's a chance that one of them could be correct out of all thousands of religions. I don't fancy the odds though so I'll play it safe and not risk believing in stuff that isn't true, because that would be a bit foolish. It's a reverse Pascals Wager. So in a nutshell that's why I don't think I'm wrong (about religions not being right), odds are heavily stacked my way here.

Just like you would be confussing (nice word, I stole it ) Christianity with theism huh?

If there's a God involved then it's theism and in Christianity what you believe in is in fact a God. A God who is somehow three separate persons one of which being a human man (something that will come as a surprise to all the aliens that could be out there) a Holy Spirit whatever that's meant to be represented by a white dove and the Father which is the main dude who made the universe and stuff who doesn't look like anything because he's invisible. So not only is there a God but you have a lot of details of this God as well. Now humans have a proven track record for making shit up when they don't know about something which is why all you can trust with any level of assurance are claims based on real evidence. When evidence isn't there you reserve judgement while making no claims of your own. To do so is to incur a burden of proof you cannot ever meet, not without evidence. So as you can see this isn't based on where you're born just beautiful logic. If there is a supreme being who reward and punishes people depending on whether they adhered to the religion of their origin of birth and culture rather than using the brain he gave them to decide otherwise then it's not a being worthy of worship anyway it may as well be some kind of all powerful demon, and you wouldn't want to suck up to that. So again reverse Pascals Wager, a God worthy of worship would be the God who doesn't mind not being specifically believed in or worshipped by anyone, the kind of God an atheist would like.

[FallentoReason]

Answering to Thomas Paine's Age of Reason:
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/m...paine.html

I posted that, just in case we are indeed having other people 'think' for us.

???

This link is about the Gospel of Matthew. Nevermind though. I particularly liked this bit:

He [Thomas Paine] fails to understand that it was quite natural for an Evangelist to touch upon a subject unmentioned by another...

Oh ok. That explains why Matthew is the only writer in antiquity that mentions a goddamn earthquake which unleashed zombie saints upon Jerusalem.

Common sense : 1 - Christian apologetics : 0

---

As if this isn't enough evidence, there's another instance whithin Genesis that reveals it was written centuries after Moses' time. This comes from Genesis 36:31 which says "and these are the kings which reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" which, for it to make sense, must necessarily have been written after at least one king reigned Israel.

It's only necessary from an a priori naturalist viewpoint. Without that, the reference to future kings of Israel is explained as prophecy. Deut 17, also in the books of Moses, says outright that Israel will one day have a king.

Deuteronomy falls like the rest of them:

Deut. 3:11
For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the race of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.

How is it that Moses knows the whereabouts of such an object and even its dimensions if Ammon was neither Og's town or a place Moses conquered? Therefore such details must have come about after the time the place was conquered; in the time of David:

2 Samuel 12:26,27
Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the Ammonites and took the royal city. And Joab sent messengers to David and said, “I have fought against Rabbah; moreover, I have taken the city of waters.

I'm sorry, but prophecies aren't something of this world, like you make them out to be.

EDIT: I mean, so what? So what that the desires of these people for a king was projected in Deut. 17? Are they not allowed to wish for themselves the same that every other nation had? To call this prophecy is wishful thinking of the highest order.

[Pompey]

Concerning the original subject, the idea that Moses didn't write the pentateuch is quite widely accepted amongst Christians. even in a bible that I own, there is a preface essay about the 4 different sources that can be traced in the pentateuch by analyzing linguistic patterns. The idea that this was probably 4 different ancient people group's word of mouth mythology woven into one actually makes it seem even more God-inspired to a lot of people.

Of course, when you only ever refer to fundamentalist / literal / legalistic Christian theology, its easy to poke holes in. I don't think its so simple.

[FallentoReason]

I believe it is on these grounds that the Christian thinks they hold a rational belief in the Bible. They believe that the documents which make up the Bible hold authority because of who wrote them

Incorrect. We believe that they hold authority because of what they say. Because what they say combines to produce a whole that computes.

...a whole that "computes"? Quite the ironic choice of word. In Ezra 2, the author lists all the tribes and adds them up to a total of 42 360. Thomas Paine has drawn up a table of all the numbers mentioned and arrives at 29 818. They can't even compute basic numbers for God's sake. Just shocking really, that contradiction arises from within one author's account. Truly cringe-worthy.

---

Concerning the original subject, the idea that Moses didn't write the pentateuch is quite widely accepted amongst Christians. even in a bible that I own, there is a preface essay about the 4 different sources that can be traced in the pentateuch by analyzing linguistic patterns.

I've read that it could even be 5 different authors, but yes, I agree. Moses most certainly did not write a word of it.

The idea that this was probably 4 different ancient people group's word of mouth mythology woven into one actually makes it seem even more God-inspired to a lot of people.

If they choose to put faith in this arbitrary tradition over any other arbitrary tradition around the world, then so be it. I'm just here to clear up the stuff that would get shoved down my throat at Bible study, Sunday mass, youth group and general chit-chat with Christian friends.

Of course, when you only ever refer to fundamentalist / literal / legalistic Christian theology, its easy to poke holes in. I don't think its so simple.

Taken literally, the Bible spectacularly brings itself down. All we have to do is point out where and how. It's all in there.

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='392791' dateline='1359389522']
Answering to Thomas Paine's Age of Reason:
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/m...paine.html

I posted that, just in case we are indeed having other people 'think' for us.

???

This link is about the Gospel of Matthew.
[quote/]

That kinda the point isn't? When we quote others to think for us their is little room for flexablity in a static quote. Meaning if you hold too tightly and blindly accept another commentary, then you are limited to what is on page.

[FallentoReason]

So why do you let "Matthew" decide for you if zombies walked the streets of Jerusalem or not?

Watch out, we got a hypocrite over here...

[Drich]

So why do you let "Matthew" decide for you if zombies walked the streets of Jerusalem or not?

Watch out, we got a hypocrite over here...

By the strictest defination of the term Christ was a zombie, and all four gospels record his reserection. (I know, I know Mark, bla, bla bla..)

But again if we are quoting other people's thoughts we were bound to what they think. so I ask are we limited by Mr. Paine's imagination or version of reason? If yes then I can not say anything more that what the rebuttle provides. As per your fine example.

[FallentoReason]

So why do you let "Matthew" decide for you if zombies walked the streets of Jerusalem or not?

Watch out, we got a hypocrite over here...

By the strictest defination of the term Christ was a zombie, and all four gospels record his reserection. (I know, I know Mark, bla, bla bla..)

"All four Gospels record his resurrection except Mark".

Contradiction at every turn of the apologist's explanation. Nothing out of the ordinary. Carry on.

But again if we are quoting other people's thoughts we were bound to what they think. so I ask are we limited by Mr. Paine's imagination or version of reason? If yes then I can not say anything more that what the rebuttle provides. As per your fine example.

No, we are not bound by his reasoning. His argument is independent of himself because it isn't based on opinion, but on what's found in the Bible. Moses' 3rd person account of his own death... ...honestly, why bother!